Introduction...

[Ouroboros]

Gay marriage: I believe that the whole reason for sex is to produce children, draw a household together (especially the spouses), and provide a well-balanced upbringing for the children. Personally, I just don't see how two people of the same gender can accomplish the last part, as they have too much in common, and would thus only promote one set of reasons, leading to a child whose values are placed on an imbalanced reasoning.

I think there has been studies showing that a kid in a gay couple grow up just as normal as other kids.

 

However, technically, Biblical marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of a couple's love, fidelity, and solidarity with each-other. So, while possible, I don't think it's logical for a man or woman to marry what basically amounts to a friend, with too much emotional emphasis placed on that friend. The fact, from my observations, is that homosexual people don't tend to have many - in some cases, none, - long-lasting relationships, because it's like dating yourself.

I think that is wrong too. If I remember right, the statistics are that homosexuals are just as serious and stay together just as long as heterosexuals. Right now, I suspect you're talking out of learned propaganda, rather than what you have found out for real.

 

No man is an island unto himself, true enough; however, it's like trying to fit two puzzle pieces together that don't fit, just because they're both pretty, and the designs compliment each-other. Now, you may call me closed-minded, but the fact is that, while I don't see anything really constructive about homosexual marriage, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, there are certain aspects of the lifestyle and community that I happen to find admirable and commendable. We simply disagree on whether or not emotions and impulses should rule the people to whom they were given.

So when did you decide to become heterosexual? Was it hard? I mean, consider this (just FYI, I'm not gay if you wonder), the argument is that gay people choose to become gay, while science show that it is not the case, and also from experience, can you even consider to become homosexual? How do you "decide" such a thing? I couldn't. I don't know how I ever could find someone of the same sex attractive, so my heterosexuality isn't a choice, but innate within me. And studies show that this is the same case with homosexuals.

 

So imagine if you lived in a society that demanded that you would be homosexual against your inner being. How would you feel? I can only assume you would feel oppressed, forced, frustrated, angry... etc, right? But that's what you like to do to others.

 

Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Obviously from the argument above, you do not.

 

...

I don't care who adopts the child, as long as they don't manipulate, neglect, or abuse the child in any way.

And... as it seems, there are more neglect and abuse in heterosexual families.

 

Several times a week we have the amber-alert signs on the freeway reporting a kidnapping. Every time it seems to be the husband of a heterosexual couple. One time, just recently in the news, there were a homosexual couple that had abused their adopted kid. It was on the front page. Of course, one incident means they all do it. While thousands of incidents of heterosexual couples only means that a few, once in a while, do it. Isn't it weird how we unintentionally twist reality to fit our beliefs?

 

Should a child be raised around homosexuality, without heterosexuality being present in the child's life? No, because it presents the child with a form of peer/authority pressure.

You mean, like in the Christian families who home-school their kids? I agree. They are using their power and control to brain-wash their kids, and not letting them meet and converse with non-Christians.

 

Without you realizing it, you're presenting a very homophobic side. You're scared and you're full of sexual prejudice. Angle, if God is the Truth, then don't believe lies. Start look into the real world and see what it really is, and stop repeating pamphlet slurs to prove your point. Take a class in psychology, and read about human sexuality. Learn, read, study, and be open to that you might be influenced by other peoples fear, instead of fact and knowledge.

 

I have known many kids who turned gay, because they thought that was what their parents wanted. In fact, one of my cousins came close, and still has a bias against men (of course, there are other reasons for her distaste for men, as is true with my aunt, but living with a lesbian mother and her lover surely didn't help her prejudice against men). In short, the child must have a well-rounded upbringing. If a gay parent or an atheist parent can provide that, and not force their prejudice on their children, why would God object?

Wait a minute. You say you know many kids who turned gay because of parents pressure? What kind of circles are you in? How many are you talking about exactly? Give us a number.

 

Okay, at least you admit that if they can provide a stable and normal family, then you have no objection. That's good. So how do you know if they do, or if they don't? Not by starting to assume they won't give a stable and normal family situation to a kid. We can't say: "we're against homosex couples adopt kids, because we suspect it won't be stable." You have no proof they won't, and unfortunately, a large number of families today are not stable... heterosexual families. It's like a 50-70% divorce rate, and the majority are Christians, only because of the sheer fact that a majority of people in US are Christian. So if heterosexuals can divorce and cheat left and right, why do we put the pressure on homosexual couples to live to a higher standard than the "normal"? Is it normal that for every four couples, three of them have gone through a divorce? If that's the norm, then why even argue that as a criticism against homosexuals!? In other words, it's a double standard. You're saying: "heterosexuals can do whatever they want and don't have to follow any standards, but homosexuals have to follow the highest moral standard we can think of." To me it sounds like Christianity. A Christian can sin, murder, cheat, steal, lie, as long as he say "Sorry God," but the non-believer can do good, help people, heal the sick, give money to the poor, but is considered a sinner. Double standards galore!

 

 

If they didn't inject their own personal prejudices, biases and discriminations into their decisions, and none of the other candidates were right for the job, I might vote for a gay or atheist ruler (of course, when I say prejudice, bias and discrimination, I don't mean it necessarily in the negative way. I just mean their belief that their opinions are more important than others, and that their lifestyle is more important than the people. In other words, if they wanted to make the entire city a gay city, or an atheist city, and cause pain and suffering for those who disagreed, I wouldn't consider them: if they were going to be fair, and allow disagreements to a certain extent, I might). I think God cares more about how the lifestyle and/or action affects His creations, and the reason behind it, than the act itself. Hence, though there were prescribed sacrifices, God said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice".

Basically you're saying, you are prejudiced, biased and discriminative against gays, because you believe they all are prejudiced, biased and they discriminate? "I hate them, because I think they hate me!" kind of argument.

 

Again, I can totally recognize the sexual prejudice and homophobia in you, based on my own experience. I used to be like that too. Still, I'm a little uncomfortable around gay people, but I haven't found them to be any different (in any major way) in all the other areas of life. They go through the same happiness, sadness, anger, frustration like us, and they bleed like us, they're no different. They're humans, like us.

 

May I ask, how do you view medical complications like babies born with distorted genitalia? There are girls born with a penis, and boys born without. Usually they have to do a sex assignment and surgically make them to either sex, and do which one is closest. So in our society, there's a fraction of people who are female on the outside, but XY on the inside, and male on the outside, but genetically XX. This situation of obscure sexuality is actually more common than people think. Do these people also affect the outcome of the children's future and how they are raised? Do the person who was assigned at birth present a threat to your stable community? And furthermore, there is this famous case of David, who was assigned to be a girl, got hormones and was treated and raised as a girl... but the whole thing failed, because he always felt he was a boy, and later in life did a sex change back to male. So you can see that the sexual identity is within us, not on the outside, or not even in the hormones. The brain is either wired as male or female (or maybe even asexual...)

[Purple]

This may be somewhat off topic, but the homosexual question hit home for me. I am not gay, my daughter is. (I'm bi, but I'm just not going to get into my relationships right now, if ya wanna know PM me.) She has a life dream and part of it includes being married. Her reasons for wanting this are the same as many heterosexuals. She has a strong sense of family because of how she was raised, she wants the same for herself, she just has no romantic interest in men. She is not this way because she has no father, a distant father, or a mother who is bitter about men. Her father loves her, so deeply, its a beautiful thing to see, and have seen throughout her life, as I have had the pleasure to do.

 

When I left the church my husband went on a search for a new church home, this was a long process I am not going to go into detail with, but he landed at a local Congregational church that is open and affirming, which is basically code for they accept gays. Homosexuals do not stay in relationships? Really? well so far here in cali none of the couples in the church are married, because it was not legal. Many are in long term relationships and have been for a long time, and there are 3 weddings planned that I know of. You may know homosexuals that have not had steady relationships, so do I, but I also know a lot of hets that do not either. In fact with my kids, most of their friends parents are het, but only a handful are still together, there are a LOT of blended families out there having NOTHING to do with gays. From what I see very few people gay or stright have the ability for life long monogomy. Now I'm not saying that life long monogomous marriage is bad, but for everyone? Gay and stright, it may be unrealistic.

 

People decide to get married for their own reasons. If you get married AOH I suppose it will have nothing to do with emotions, no it will be to establish a family. I think that is great for you, but it's not the same reason others, including heterosexuals want to get married. If a man and a woman decide they love each other and want to get married, but they know going in that one or both are sterile should they not get married? Why not? As to same sex couples are too much the same, no way, this is just malarkey. By that way of thinking the biblical teaching of not being unequally yoked would be wrong. All people are different, I do not have any more in common with women that I do with my husband. What you are saying is you, as an adult, have made a decision, based in part on your faith, and in part on life observations on what you believe marriage should be. Great, that's your right, but you want to take it furhtur and say the decision you made is right for everyone. Others, who you do not know, should decide their life plan and dream on what you believe.

 

In short saying that homosexuals can't maintain long term relationships is wrong, so you can't say that homosexual marriage is wrong based on that. Saying that same sex couples will not learn abotu differences in their relationships is also wrong, so you cannot base their rigth to marry is wrong based on this either. There are many same sex couples in loving long term relationships, and same sex couples have the same challenges in living with another human being that heterosexual couples do. By your standards you are holding same sex relationshipos to, by the stats hetero marriage is a failure. The divorce rate is out of control, obviously men and women should not be allowed to live together, this has to be stopped. Heteros have been known to raise bitter angry children, abuse them, hurt them, and when their marriages end, as they almost all seem to do they drag children into long ugly custody battles. This week on the news a het man shot his life partner wife in the face, stole thier child and went to mexico. He then, without saying anything to this boy left him in a church, he called a family memeber adn told them where the boy could be found, he then stepped out into traffic and was hit and killed. It is uncertain at this time if it was suicide. Somehow his ex-wife, they were divorced, survived being shot in the face and the boy has been reunited with her. SEE! hets should not be allowed to raise children!!!!

 

Just doesn't work does it? No, you see the problem is, a lot of people, regaurdless of race, creed or sexual orientation suck. Humans are both sexual and violent by nature. Oh we aspire to be, if not monogomous, at least sexualy responsible, and to be peaceful. We often fail on both counts though, and sometimes we fail miserably. Weather that's because of a sin nature, or evolution for this conversation doesn't matter. It's how we ALL are, not just one group. I'm not saying that as a cop out, I'm not saying we should just give up and not try to be sexually responcible and peaceful. I am saying some people in all camps will fail, and some people in ALL camps will be successful. I can't know when someone is making those marriage vows if this couple will be a success, will be together their whole lives. I cannot say that about same sex couples, or hetero couples. Since I can't I don't think I have the right to decide who, among consenting adults, can and even should get married. AOH it is not your place either.

[Antlerman]

What are my ideas about teaching creation in the classroom? Personally, I am an avid believer in the idea of creation over Darwinian evolution. Without personal opinion being injected into the subject, science is all about being fair and balanced in experimentation and hypothesis. I think it should be taught as a possibility, as should evolution. The evidence - both for, and against, - both should be presented in a fair and balanced way to the class, and each individual should be allowed to come to their own conclusions and attempt to provide support for them in an open forum. May the best idea win...

I'll get to my other response later. Since others have addressed the issues about homosexuality, I'll not address that here other than to reiterate that your knowledge of it is a bit culturally antiquated and doesn't square with actual research.

 

What I want to address is the above. Science has examined the claims of Creationists, and it has failed to meet the standards. This is true of a lot of hypothesis that science examines. But instead of being scientific about it and accepting it's failure as a valid scientific theory, Creationists make it political. That is not doing science. Turning to the public for support is not doing science. It's politics, plain and simple.

 

As far as it being presented in a science classroom, why should it? It's not considered valid science. Period. Teach it in a humanities class about cultural and religious issues, but in no way shape or form should it be taught as a an alternative scientific theory. It is not one. It's a religious belief. Should they also teach astrology as an alternative to science in a science class? Should they teach the Theory of Evolution as part of the curriculum in Wood Shop? Of course not. It doesn't belong there. You only teach valid, legitamate scientific theories in Science class. The Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory that is absolutely relevant to any science curriculum. Creationism is not science. It has been scientifically falsified - repeatedly.

 

I love this quote from the Botanical Society of America to underscore how NOT science Creationism is:

This demonstrates the

scientific

uselessness

of creationism

. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation.

Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.

In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey),

creationism has been scientifically falsified

.

 

Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.

[Emphasis Mine]

 

From here: http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php I would highly recommend reading the whole thing.

 

So, no it would be unfair to teach this in a science class. It would be unfair to the children to be taught something other than valid science in a class for teaching science. Valid science is not decided as a matter of personal choice.

[godlessgrrl]

A quick question for you, Angel: if reality and your beliefs do not match up, which one wins?

[Neon Genesis]

How have I tried to convert anyone? I stated my point on here, and I thought I would receive some responses, rather than questions. I answer what questions come my way, as best I can. Whether you believe either you, or I, am right or wrong makes no difference to me.

Why did you claim to know the truth and that everyone else was wrong earlier in your thread, then? When you make such sweeping statements such as that, what else would you expect other than questions?

 

I initially came on here to find out why someone would turn away from what they understood to be Christianity (if it were indeed actual Christianity). Thus, I am most definitely not looking for a fight. I'm looking to understand things. I'm not one to back down from a fight, but I am certainly not one to start a fight, either.

Then, why don't you try to understand why people express anger in their posts instead of making false accusations of ex-Christians if you're really here to understand things? It sounds more like to me that you already have your mind made up more so than looking for understanding.

 

 

Who says my "accusations" against any of you are false? I've done some looking on this site, and I've seen some of you just verbally tear chunks out of other Christians, for nothing more than basically saying "hi, I'm a Christian. What's going on here?"...

Since when has anyone here been angry or bitter at you simply for being a Christian? Point to us one instance where somebody was angry at you simply for being a Christian. I'd say this thread has been pretty tolerant and respectable thus far.

 

Doesn't that constitute being bitter, and/or angry?

Are people here really being angry at you or are they simply disagreeing with you and you can't handle that fact? From where I stand, it looks more like the latter to me.

 

Note, also, I didn't say all of you are that way, or point out anyone in particular (except you, and then only from my observation of your post to me). As for flaming... I don't know about any of you, but I think I tried pretty hard to make my posts as unoffensive as possible, while still getting my point across.

If you don't know anything about us, then why are you making presumptions about how we feel about Christians? I thought you were here for understanding?

 

As for my posts being off-topic... I made an observation. It was very much on-topic, because it pertained to a post you had posted to me, which was of a very prejudicial tone. You, indeed, do seem to be bitter and angry. Is that an insult to your character? You may think it was, but it actually isn't. It's more a comment about your attitude, than your personality. Surely, you can see the difference between the two.

How has any of my posts been prejudiced or angry and bitter towards you? Did I yell insulting language at you? Did I call for you to be burned at the stake? Did I deny you equal rights to live your life the way you want to like you seem to want to do with gays? Did I try to enforce my disbelief on you like you seem to want to do with creationism in the science classroom? If anyone's being prejudiced here, it seems like to me you're the only one who's bitter and angry at gays and atheists. You have yet to explain how anything I've said to you is bitter and angry other than pointing fingers at me as if that somehow counts as proof.

 

Take my posts at face-value, because I have nothing deeper to say than what I say. If you can't understand what I mean about something, by all means, ask away. I have problems expressing myself (among others), and I will try to explain as best I can. Don't go assuming I mean to do, say, think, or feel something, just because you have a question about something I post and you don't want to get the answer from me.

 

God bless you,

 

~AOH~

What the fuck, why would I ask you a question if I didn't want the answer from you? That makes no sense at all. If I didn't want an answer from you, I wouldn't bother asking you.

[Kuroikaze]

In fact, you take the same tone with other Christians on the board, but not with other non-Christians... even when they might disagree with you. It's almost like you go out of your way to avoid confrontation with other non-Christians, but you deliberately try to confront and attack Christians. Sure, some may deserve it, for being rude and abrasive... but do they all, regardless of their attitude? Ask yourself: isn't the idea of being rude and abrasive against someone, just because they disagree with your beliefs, a reason you left what you consider to be Christianity? I don't assume to know anything more about you than what you show me with your posts...

 

From the rest of this post I conclude that your statements about not mistreating other groups is just lip service. I'm not saying you are lying, mind you, I think you really DO believe that you are not a bigot, and that is what is so sad about your religion. It causes regular nice people like yourself to do harmful things to other human beings.

 

I'm not mad at you, I just fell sorry for you, you are trapped in a belief system that makes you do immoral things and you don't even realize the harm you cause. I know because I've been there.

 

As far as me being rude and abrasive, you might read around a bit more, I can be quite civil with Christians when they are civil to me, and don't make baseless accusations. You can find multiple examples on this site of me speaking in a completely non abrasive manner with Christians.

 

I haven't even really been rude to you, I just told you what I think of your belief system. The rudest I got was when you quoted a bible passage that I had just quoted and claimed it said the opposite of what it said, with no explanation as to why. I was rude, because it caught me a bit off guard. It was like telling someone 2+2=4 and having them respond by saying "you're exactly right, 2+2=5" I was just kind of sitting there saying "wha?" for about a minute.

 

Respect and trust is earned, not just handed out like party favors.

 

I have also taken many non-Christians to task on beliefs that I found incorrect. In fact, perhaps you should read the thread on Satanism in the Lions den. There is a Satanist posting there whom I have been MUCH less patient with than you. So perhaps you should check your facts better.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Excellent points on evolution Antler, I'll add one more thing

 

The notion that we should allow both taught in science class rooms so that people in high school can debate the issue, its nonsense.

 

High school is not the place to debate scientific theory's period. The place to debate scientific theory's is in research laboratories or maybe at graduate school level. And the creationist have tried, but the theory is so completely without merit that that know one at that level takes it seriously.

 

Of course the creationists whine and complain that it does have merit but the scientists are just too narrow minded to see But that doesn't work very well.

 

So the plan they have it to get the theory into schools and brainwash our children, so as the children mature eventually they can force evolution out completely without the need for that pesky empiricism.

[Angel of Hope]

Gay marriage: I believe that the whole reason for sex is to produce children, draw a household together (especially the spouses), and provide a well-balanced upbringing for the children. Personally, I just don't see how two people of the same gender can accomplish the last part, as they have too much in common, and would thus only promote one set of reasons, leading to a child whose values are placed on an imbalanced reasoning.

I think there has been studies showing that a kid in a gay couple grow up just as normal as other kids.

 

However, technically, Biblical marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of a couple's love, fidelity, and solidarity with each-other. So, while possible, I don't think it's logical for a man or woman to marry what basically amounts to a friend, with too much emotional emphasis placed on that friend. The fact, from my observations, is that homosexual people don't tend to have many - in some cases, none, - long-lasting relationships, because it's like dating yourself.

I think that is wrong too. If I remember right, the statistics are that homosexuals are just as serious and stay together just as long as heterosexuals. Right now, I suspect you're talking out of learned propaganda, rather than what you have found out for real.

 

No man is an island unto himself, true enough; however, it's like trying to fit two puzzle pieces together that don't fit, just because they're both pretty, and the designs compliment each-other. Now, you may call me closed-minded, but the fact is that, while I don't see anything really constructive about homosexual marriage, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, there are certain aspects of the lifestyle and community that I happen to find admirable and commendable. We simply disagree on whether or not emotions and impulses should rule the people to whom they were given.

So when did you decide to become heterosexual? Was it hard? I mean, consider this (just FYI, I'm not gay if you wonder), the argument is that gay people choose to become gay, while science show that it is not the case, and also from experience, can you even consider to become homosexual? How do you "decide" such a thing? I couldn't. I don't know how I ever could find someone of the same sex attractive, so my heterosexuality isn't a choice, but innate within me. And studies show that this is the same case with homosexuals.

 

So imagine if you lived in a society that demanded that you would be homosexual against your inner being. How would you feel? I can only assume you would feel oppressed, forced, frustrated, angry... etc, right? But that's what you like to do to others.

 

Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Obviously from the argument above, you do not.

 

...

I don't care who adopts the child, as long as they don't manipulate, neglect, or abuse the child in any way.

And... as it seems, there are more neglect and abuse in heterosexual families.

 

Several times a week we have the amber-alert signs on the freeway reporting a kidnapping. Every time it seems to be the husband of a heterosexual couple. One time, just recently in the news, there were a homosexual couple that had abused their adopted kid. It was on the front page. Of course, one incident means they all do it. While thousands of incidents of heterosexual couples only means that a few, once in a while, do it. Isn't it weird how we unintentionally twist reality to fit our beliefs?

 

Should a child be raised around homosexuality, without heterosexuality being present in the child's life? No, because it presents the child with a form of peer/authority pressure.

You mean, like in the Christian families who home-school their kids? I agree. They are using their power and control to brain-wash their kids, and not letting them meet and converse with non-Christians.

 

Without you realizing it, you're presenting a very homophobic side. You're scared and you're full of sexual prejudice. Angle, if God is the Truth, then don't believe lies. Start look into the real world and see what it really is, and stop repeating pamphlet slurs to prove your point. Take a class in psychology, and read about human sexuality. Learn, read, study, and be open to that you might be influenced by other peoples fear, instead of fact and knowledge.

 

I have known many kids who turned gay, because they thought that was what their parents wanted. In fact, one of my cousins came close, and still has a bias against men (of course, there are other reasons for her distaste for men, as is true with my aunt, but living with a lesbian mother and her lover surely didn't help her prejudice against men). In short, the child must have a well-rounded upbringing. If a gay parent or an atheist parent can provide that, and not force their prejudice on their children, why would God object?

Wait a minute. You say you know many kids who turned gay because of parents pressure? What kind of circles are you in? How many are you talking about exactly? Give us a number.

 

Okay, at least you admit that if they can provide a stable and normal family, then you have no objection. That's good. So how do you know if they do, or if they don't? Not by starting to assume they won't give a stable and normal family situation to a kid. We can't say: "we're against homosex couples adopt kids, because we suspect it won't be stable." You have no proof they won't, and unfortunately, a large number of families today are not stable... heterosexual families. It's like a 50-70% divorce rate, and the majority are Christians, only because of the sheer fact that a majority of people in US are Christian. So if heterosexuals can divorce and cheat left and right, why do we put the pressure on homosexual couples to live to a higher standard than the "normal"? Is it normal that for every four couples, three of them have gone through a divorce? If that's the norm, then why even argue that as a criticism against homosexuals!? In other words, it's a double standard. You're saying: "heterosexuals can do whatever they want and don't have to follow any standards, but homosexuals have to follow the highest moral standard we can think of." To me it sounds like Christianity. A Christian can sin, murder, cheat, steal, lie, as long as he say "Sorry God," but the non-believer can do good, help people, heal the sick, give money to the poor, but is considered a sinner. Double standards galore!

 

 

If they didn't inject their own personal prejudices, biases and discriminations into their decisions, and none of the other candidates were right for the job, I might vote for a gay or atheist ruler (of course, when I say prejudice, bias and discrimination, I don't mean it necessarily in the negative way. I just mean their belief that their opinions are more important than others, and that their lifestyle is more important than the people. In other words, if they wanted to make the entire city a gay city, or an atheist city, and cause pain and suffering for those who disagreed, I wouldn't consider them: if they were going to be fair, and allow disagreements to a certain extent, I might). I think God cares more about how the lifestyle and/or action affects His creations, and the reason behind it, than the act itself. Hence, though there were prescribed sacrifices, God said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice".

Basically you're saying, you are prejudiced, biased and discriminative against gays, because you believe they all are prejudiced, biased and they discriminate? "I hate them, because I think they hate me!" kind of argument.

 

Again, I can totally recognize the sexual prejudice and homophobia in you, based on my own experience. I used to be like that too. Still, I'm a little uncomfortable around gay people, but I haven't found them to be any different (in any major way) in all the other areas of life. They go through the same happiness, sadness, anger, frustration like us, and they bleed like us, they're no different. They're humans, like us.

 

May I ask, how do you view medical complications like babies born with distorted genitalia? There are girls born with a penis, and boys born without. Usually they have to do a sex assignment and surgically make them to either sex, and do which one is closest. So in our society, there's a fraction of people who are female on the outside, but XY on the inside, and male on the outside, but genetically XX. This situation of obscure sexuality is actually more common than people think. Do these people also affect the outcome of the children's future and how they are raised? Do the person who was assigned at birth present a threat to your stable community? And furthermore, there is this famous case of David, who was assigned to be a girl, got hormones and was treated and raised as a girl... but the whole thing failed, because he always felt he was a boy, and later in life did a sex change back to male. So you can see that the sexual identity is within us, not on the outside, or not even in the hormones. The brain is either wired as male or female (or maybe even asexual...)

 

To everyone: interesting points, one and all... however, I don't have the time to go through them all, so I'll answer a couple at length...

 

Firstly, God put me through the trials I went through because I had to "walk a mile in another man's shoes". If I was going to be a minister, and help others as best as one can, I had to experience things from their perspective. People like Bill Gates can give until they're blue in the wallet, but it won't do any good unless they have a deeper reason for giving, and can empathize with those they're giving to. Until that time, I had suffered abuse of all calibers, and various tragedies, but those could never compare to my time on the streets. I actually almost wanted to die. Only then could I truly grasp the depths of hopelessness of the people who have been forced into the role of social pariah, and only when I could understand them personally could I do any lasting and deep good.

 

Secondly... I have had experience interacting with homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual people. My aunt and her lover are lesbian, but my aunt became lesbian in the first place because her husband and father drove her to it. I've known many of my friends who felt somehow forced into the role of gay, lesbian, or transsexual, because of circumstances in their lives, and they were just tired of fighting. I've also known bisexual people, who are bisexual simply because they get the role of friend and lover confounded, or because they can't manage their own libido. Does that mean they're hopelessly perverted monsters, incapable of a second chance? No; but it does mean that, since their sexual orientation is such an integral part of their lives, and was introduced to them under such earth-shattering circumstances, it is difficult to get them to understand that sex is about more than pleasure alone... essentially, they - for the most part, from my experience, - have based their entire existence and all they know on their sexual identity. When they find out that sex isn't so important to warrant an identity be based on it at all, they tend to resist, almost violently in some cases. Eventually, they suffer a breakdown, and they either rebuild on something more substantial, or they never recover. I do feel bad for those who suffer, but I have seen cases where they have actually suffered worse emotional, psychological, and even physical damage from continuing in such a lifestyle.

 

Granted, I don't know it all, and I don't have any way of sifting through all the information to learn it all, but I do have my experiences, and those shared with me. If these experiences are so common to the people I know, then I can't help but think that such a lifestyle choice might be harmful.

 

I've known people who have been so scarred by their lifestyle being based on sexual preference, that they tried to kill themselves. Others can't have a solid relationship because they can't find anyone they really love that is more to them than mere sexual pleasure, and that tends to ruin the relationship when sex is put on such a base and insignificant, almost addictive level for them.

 

There is, from my experience, someone out there for everybody; and, from my experience, that tends to mean there is someone from the opposite sex out there for everyone. Love is not something to be entered into lightly...

 

As for my sexual preference... I won't say that there is anybody out there, who, from time to time, doesn't have sexual thoughts about the same gender. I chose to be straight when I compared what I liked about the general demeanor and nature of a woman to that of a man. As a man, I already have the qualities that I might find attractive in other men, so why not look for someone who has attributes I don't have? As for whether or not I follow the "golden rule"... I don't treat gay, bi or transsexual people any different from others. If two people that are straight are not right for each-other, then I won't approve of their marriage to each-other, either. And, I don't plan to marry (at least, just yet).

 

I guess that's all I have to say about that for now...

 

~AOH~

[Angel of Hope]

Gay marriage: I believe that the whole reason for sex is to produce children, draw a household together (especially the spouses), and provide a well-balanced upbringing for the children. Personally, I just don't see how two people of the same gender can accomplish the last part, as they have too much in common, and would thus only promote one set of reasons, leading to a child whose values are placed on an imbalanced reasoning.

I think there has been studies showing that a kid in a gay couple grow up just as normal as other kids.

 

However, technically, Biblical marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of a couple's love, fidelity, and solidarity with each-other. So, while possible, I don't think it's logical for a man or woman to marry what basically amounts to a friend, with too much emotional emphasis placed on that friend. The fact, from my observations, is that homosexual people don't tend to have many - in some cases, none, - long-lasting relationships, because it's like dating yourself.

I think that is wrong too. If I remember right, the statistics are that homosexuals are just as serious and stay together just as long as heterosexuals. Right now, I suspect you're talking out of learned propaganda, rather than what you have found out for real.

 

No man is an island unto himself, true enough; however, it's like trying to fit two puzzle pieces together that don't fit, just because they're both pretty, and the designs compliment each-other. Now, you may call me closed-minded, but the fact is that, while I don't see anything really constructive about homosexual marriage, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, there are certain aspects of the lifestyle and community that I happen to find admirable and commendable. We simply disagree on whether or not emotions and impulses should rule the people to whom they were given.

So when did you decide to become heterosexual? Was it hard? I mean, consider this (just FYI, I'm not gay if you wonder), the argument is that gay people choose to become gay, while science show that it is not the case, and also from experience, can you even consider to become homosexual? How do you "decide" such a thing? I couldn't. I don't know how I ever could find someone of the same sex attractive, so my heterosexuality isn't a choice, but innate within me. And studies show that this is the same case with homosexuals.

 

So imagine if you lived in a society that demanded that you would be homosexual against your inner being. How would you feel? I can only assume you would feel oppressed, forced, frustrated, angry... etc, right? But that's what you like to do to others.

 

Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Obviously from the argument above, you do not.

 

...

I don't care who adopts the child, as long as they don't manipulate, neglect, or abuse the child in any way.

And... as it seems, there are more neglect and abuse in heterosexual families.

 

Several times a week we have the amber-alert signs on the freeway reporting a kidnapping. Every time it seems to be the husband of a heterosexual couple. One time, just recently in the news, there were a homosexual couple that had abused their adopted kid. It was on the front page. Of course, one incident means they all do it. While thousands of incidents of heterosexual couples only means that a few, once in a while, do it. Isn't it weird how we unintentionally twist reality to fit our beliefs?

 

Should a child be raised around homosexuality, without heterosexuality being present in the child's life? No, because it presents the child with a form of peer/authority pressure.

You mean, like in the Christian families who home-school their kids? I agree. They are using their power and control to brain-wash their kids, and not letting them meet and converse with non-Christians.

 

Without you realizing it, you're presenting a very homophobic side. You're scared and you're full of sexual prejudice. Angle, if God is the Truth, then don't believe lies. Start look into the real world and see what it really is, and stop repeating pamphlet slurs to prove your point. Take a class in psychology, and read about human sexuality. Learn, read, study, and be open to that you might be influenced by other peoples fear, instead of fact and knowledge.

 

I have known many kids who turned gay, because they thought that was what their parents wanted. In fact, one of my cousins came close, and still has a bias against men (of course, there are other reasons for her distaste for men, as is true with my aunt, but living with a lesbian mother and her lover surely didn't help her prejudice against men). In short, the child must have a well-rounded upbringing. If a gay parent or an atheist parent can provide that, and not force their prejudice on their children, why would God object?

Wait a minute. You say you know many kids who turned gay because of parents pressure? What kind of circles are you in? How many are you talking about exactly? Give us a number.

 

Okay, at least you admit that if they can provide a stable and normal family, then you have no objection. That's good. So how do you know if they do, or if they don't? Not by starting to assume they won't give a stable and normal family situation to a kid. We can't say: "we're against homosex couples adopt kids, because we suspect it won't be stable." You have no proof they won't, and unfortunately, a large number of families today are not stable... heterosexual families. It's like a 50-70% divorce rate, and the majority are Christians, only because of the sheer fact that a majority of people in US are Christian. So if heterosexuals can divorce and cheat left and right, why do we put the pressure on homosexual couples to live to a higher standard than the "normal"? Is it normal that for every four couples, three of them have gone through a divorce? If that's the norm, then why even argue that as a criticism against homosexuals!? In other words, it's a double standard. You're saying: "heterosexuals can do whatever they want and don't have to follow any standards, but homosexuals have to follow the highest moral standard we can think of." To me it sounds like Christianity. A Christian can sin, murder, cheat, steal, lie, as long as he say "Sorry God," but the non-believer can do good, help people, heal the sick, give money to the poor, but is considered a sinner. Double standards galore!

 

 

If they didn't inject their own personal prejudices, biases and discriminations into their decisions, and none of the other candidates were right for the job, I might vote for a gay or atheist ruler (of course, when I say prejudice, bias and discrimination, I don't mean it necessarily in the negative way. I just mean their belief that their opinions are more important than others, and that their lifestyle is more important than the people. In other words, if they wanted to make the entire city a gay city, or an atheist city, and cause pain and suffering for those who disagreed, I wouldn't consider them: if they were going to be fair, and allow disagreements to a certain extent, I might). I think God cares more about how the lifestyle and/or action affects His creations, and the reason behind it, than the act itself. Hence, though there were prescribed sacrifices, God said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice".

Basically you're saying, you are prejudiced, biased and discriminative against gays, because you believe they all are prejudiced, biased and they discriminate? "I hate them, because I think they hate me!" kind of argument.

 

Again, I can totally recognize the sexual prejudice and homophobia in you, based on my own experience. I used to be like that too. Still, I'm a little uncomfortable around gay people, but I haven't found them to be any different (in any major way) in all the other areas of life. They go through the same happiness, sadness, anger, frustration like us, and they bleed like us, they're no different. They're humans, like us.

 

May I ask, how do you view medical complications like babies born with distorted genitalia? There are girls born with a penis, and boys born without. Usually they have to do a sex assignment and surgically make them to either sex, and do which one is closest. So in our society, there's a fraction of people who are female on the outside, but XY on the inside, and male on the outside, but genetically XX. This situation of obscure sexuality is actually more common than people think. Do these people also affect the outcome of the children's future and how they are raised? Do the person who was assigned at birth present a threat to your stable community? And furthermore, there is this famous case of David, who was assigned to be a girl, got hormones and was treated and raised as a girl... but the whole thing failed, because he always felt he was a boy, and later in life did a sex change back to male. So you can see that the sexual identity is within us, not on the outside, or not even in the hormones. The brain is either wired as male or female (or maybe even asexual...)

 

I'd also like to point out that you are the one insinuating that I'm discriminating against gay people. If I did, why would I associate with them at all? White supremacists don't associate with black people - or people of any other color, for that matter, - but I have friends and co-workers who are gay and bi. I even have relatives who are gay. I don't think any differently about them than I do about anyone else in a similar situation or frame of mind. If straight people get caught up on sex, I don't approve of that, either. It seems that you just want me to be prejudiced, and discriminatory, because you want to justify your reason for leaving Christianity. You want every Christian you talk to to be just like you believe you were, because then you have a reason to not go back to Christianity, or anything like it. That is unfair to me, and to everyone else on this board: not only to try to force Christians to fit your generalizations about them, and why they do what they do; but to give the impression that you're a typical ex-Christian, which would mean that all ex-Christians used the same methods you use... even if they don't. Yes, there are some heterosexual parents who are not fit to be parents. They don't get to keep their kids, either. Yes, there are some parents who use home-schooling to manipulate their kids: they shouldn't be allowed to home-school, either. However, do we just ban raising kids in monogamous heterosexual households, and home-schooling to keep kids away from certain school districts that might pose dangers to their children (like if there is a high rate of gang activity, or drug abuse; or if there is a high probability of persecution just because the children are different)? The answer is "no". In those cases, we're not talking about a lifestyle based on sexuality. We're talking about things that are more important than sexuality.

 

I ask you: why are you prejudiced against Christians? Not all of us are that way, ya know...

 

God bless, and I hope you understand my point better this time than you did last time.

 

~AOH~

[Kuroikaze]

I ask you: why are you prejudiced against Christians? Not all of us are that way, ya know...

 

God bless, and I hope you understand my point better this time than you did last time.

 

Nope not all Christians are bigots, I agree with you 100%.

 

But are you a bigot? I think the answer is yes. I used to, as you do, really believe that I was NOT prejudiced against homosexuals, but I was.

 

It is judgmental of you, to think that just because we think poorly of you, that we think the same way of all Christians. I know this may be difficult to swallow, but maybe the problem really is you. Maybe it isn't so much your beliefs but the way you behave.

 

You use nice pretty words, but I can see through them to the stuff underneath, mostly because I used to be the same as you. I hated the radicals like Pat Robertson and prided myself on being more compassionate in my faith. Yet, for the most part all my beliefs were the same as people like Pat Robertson. Though I tried to be kind, most non-Christians saw right through the facade, even though I didn't even know it WAS a facade.

 

I couldn't understand why some many people didn't like me. "It must be because I am being persecuted for my beliefs," I often thought. The reality was that Christianity made me a failure as a human being, and it does the same thing to you, though you don't realize it. You may think I am a heartless bastard, because I speak my mind to you, and perhaps I am, but I have not said anything to you to hurt your feelings, I only wish for you to examine your beliefs

 

It is possible to be prejudiced against people and not necessarily avoid them. A missionary will spend their whole lives trying to convert a "bunch of heathens," and while some of them may genuinely care about the people, many other don't.

[Purple]

I'd also like to point out that you are the one insinuating that I'm discriminating against gay people.>>

 

Not alowing them to live and love who they choose, stopping them from all the rights granted with legal marriage IS discrimination.

 

If I did, why would I associate with them at all? White supremacists don't associate with black people - or people of any other color, for that matter, - but I have friends and co-workers who are gay and bi. I even have relatives who are gay. I don't think any differently about them than I do about anyone else in a similar situation or frame of mind. If straight people get caught up on sex, I don't approve of that, either. It seems that you just want me to be prejudiced, and discriminatory, because you want to justify your reason for leaving Christianity.

 

I am in no way prejudice or discriminaory towards you. I disagree with you, and I think you are terribly wrong, but I am in no way stopping you from living you life as you choose and from believeing what you wish. Perhaps you were not speaking to, or about me directly, but you choose to do an overall responce for the sake of time so I am not sure. I do not want you to be prejudice, I would LOVE it if you woke up and went oh, wait gay people aren't basing their lives on sex, that's MY lable, and my assumption I'm putting on them. If you could grasp the fact that many gay people live and love just like everyone else. Here's the thing you acknowledge that some stright people are sexual irresponcible, but you are unwilling to acknowledge that there are homosexuals that ARE responcible about their sexuality. There ARE gays and lesbians that stay in monogomous relationships, that are faithful and base their lives on family, love, careers and a myriad of other things, and NOT sex. Saying gay people are hurting damaged sexual perverts based on the few you know is prejudice. You do not have to refuse to hang out with any, you simply have to judge them based on one factor, on one lable without knowing them

 

 

You want every Christian you talk to to be just like you believe you were, because then you have a reason to not go back to Christianity, or anything like it. That is unfair to me, and to everyone else on this board: not only to try to force Christians to fit your generalizations about them, and why they do what they do; but to give the impression that you're a typical ex-Christian, which would mean that all ex-Christians used the same methods you use... even if they don't. Yes, there are some heterosexual parents who are not fit to be parents. They don't get to keep their kids, either. Yes, there are some parents who use home-schooling to manipulate their kids: they shouldn't be allowed to home-school, either. However, do we just ban raising kids in monogamous heterosexual households, and home-schooling to keep kids away from certain school districts that might pose dangers to their children (like if there is a high rate of gang activity, or drug abuse; or if there is a high probability of persecution just because the children are different)? The answer is "no". In those cases, we're not talking about a lifestyle based on sexuality. We're talking about things that are more important than sexuality.

 

Because you know a handful of people, sexual oreintation being irrelivent, that base their "lifestyle" on sexuality does not mean all people in that group do. Your aunt may have some problems due to what sounds like abuse, I am sorry for her. My dughter though does not, this is NOT an abstract issue for me, you are saying based on the few people you know you are willing to judge all homosexuals, but call foul if I were to do that with Christians. A twenty year old woman who includes in her life dream falling in love and getting married is not basing their life on their sexuality, they are not sick, or perverted.

 

I ask you: why are you prejudiced against Christians? Not all of us are that way, ya know...

 

I'm not and in my post I carefully said I see the problem as fundementalists. I happen to be married to a xian.

 

God bless, and I hope you understand my point better this time than you did last time.

 

I can't say that I do, unless you are saying based on your limnited experiance it's cool for you to deny rights to a whole group of people. Homosexuals are NO different than stright people, yes some have been hurt and abused and are damaged. There are many straight people who are addicted to sex, or have been so damaged by others they are incapable of having healthy relationships, shall we judge all of them on these few and claim all hets are unable to have healthy relationships, ever. SO, well we should not allow them to ever try, and certainly we should never allow them to raise children, adoupted or their own.

 

~AOH~

[cvd26]

Gay marriage: I believe that the whole reason for sex is to produce children, draw a household together (especially the spouses), and provide a well-balanced upbringing for the children. Personally, I just don't see how two people of the same gender can accomplish the last part, as they have too much in common, and would thus only promote one set of reasons, leading to a child whose values are placed on an imbalanced reasoning.

I think there has been studies showing that a kid in a gay couple grow up just as normal as other kids.

 

However, technically, Biblical marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of a couple's love, fidelity, and solidarity with each-other. So, while possible, I don't think it's logical for a man or woman to marry what basically amounts to a friend, with too much emotional emphasis placed on that friend. The fact, from my observations, is that homosexual people don't tend to have many - in some cases, none, - long-lasting relationships, because it's like dating yourself.

I think that is wrong too. If I remember right, the statistics are that homosexuals are just as serious and stay together just as long as heterosexuals. Right now, I suspect you're talking out of learned propaganda, rather than what you have found out for real.

 

No man is an island unto himself, true enough; however, it's like trying to fit two puzzle pieces together that don't fit, just because they're both pretty, and the designs compliment each-other. Now, you may call me closed-minded, but the fact is that, while I don't see anything really constructive about homosexual marriage, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, there are certain aspects of the lifestyle and community that I happen to find admirable and commendable. We simply disagree on whether or not emotions and impulses should rule the people to whom they were given.

So when did you decide to become heterosexual? Was it hard? I mean, consider this (just FYI, I'm not gay if you wonder), the argument is that gay people choose to become gay, while science show that it is not the case, and also from experience, can you even consider to become homosexual? How do you "decide" such a thing? I couldn't. I don't know how I ever could find someone of the same sex attractive, so my heterosexuality isn't a choice, but innate within me. And studies show that this is the same case with homosexuals.

 

So imagine if you lived in a society that demanded that you would be homosexual against your inner being. How would you feel? I can only assume you would feel oppressed, forced, frustrated, angry... etc, right? But that's what you like to do to others.

 

Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Obviously from the argument above, you do not.

 

...

I don't care who adopts the child, as long as they don't manipulate, neglect, or abuse the child in any way.

And... as it seems, there are more neglect and abuse in heterosexual families.

 

Several times a week we have the amber-alert signs on the freeway reporting a kidnapping. Every time it seems to be the husband of a heterosexual couple. One time, just recently in the news, there were a homosexual couple that had abused their adopted kid. It was on the front page. Of course, one incident means they all do it. While thousands of incidents of heterosexual couples only means that a few, once in a while, do it. Isn't it weird how we unintentionally twist reality to fit our beliefs?

 

Should a child be raised around homosexuality, without heterosexuality being present in the child's life? No, because it presents the child with a form of peer/authority pressure.

You mean, like in the Christian families who home-school their kids? I agree. They are using their power and control to brain-wash their kids, and not letting them meet and converse with non-Christians.

 

Without you realizing it, you're presenting a very homophobic side. You're scared and you're full of sexual prejudice. Angle, if God is the Truth, then don't believe lies. Start look into the real world and see what it really is, and stop repeating pamphlet slurs to prove your point. Take a class in psychology, and read about human sexuality. Learn, read, study, and be open to that you might be influenced by other peoples fear, instead of fact and knowledge.

 

I have known many kids who turned gay, because they thought that was what their parents wanted. In fact, one of my cousins came close, and still has a bias against men (of course, there are other reasons for her distaste for men, as is true with my aunt, but living with a lesbian mother and her lover surely didn't help her prejudice against men). In short, the child must have a well-rounded upbringing. If a gay parent or an atheist parent can provide that, and not force their prejudice on their children, why would God object?

Wait a minute. You say you know many kids who turned gay because of parents pressure? What kind of circles are you in? How many are you talking about exactly? Give us a number.

 

Okay, at least you admit that if they can provide a stable and normal family, then you have no objection. That's good. So how do you know if they do, or if they don't? Not by starting to assume they won't give a stable and normal family situation to a kid. We can't say: "we're against homosex couples adopt kids, because we suspect it won't be stable." You have no proof they won't, and unfortunately, a large number of families today are not stable... heterosexual families. It's like a 50-70% divorce rate, and the majority are Christians, only because of the sheer fact that a majority of people in US are Christian. So if heterosexuals can divorce and cheat left and right, why do we put the pressure on homosexual couples to live to a higher standard than the "normal"? Is it normal that for every four couples, three of them have gone through a divorce? If that's the norm, then why even argue that as a criticism against homosexuals!? In other words, it's a double standard. You're saying: "heterosexuals can do whatever they want and don't have to follow any standards, but homosexuals have to follow the highest moral standard we can think of." To me it sounds like Christianity. A Christian can sin, murder, cheat, steal, lie, as long as he say "Sorry God," but the non-believer can do good, help people, heal the sick, give money to the poor, but is considered a sinner. Double standards galore!

 

 

If they didn't inject their own personal prejudices, biases and discriminations into their decisions, and none of the other candidates were right for the job, I might vote for a gay or atheist ruler (of course, when I say prejudice, bias and discrimination, I don't mean it necessarily in the negative way. I just mean their belief that their opinions are more important than others, and that their lifestyle is more important than the people. In other words, if they wanted to make the entire city a gay city, or an atheist city, and cause pain and suffering for those who disagreed, I wouldn't consider them: if they were going to be fair, and allow disagreements to a certain extent, I might). I think God cares more about how the lifestyle and/or action affects His creations, and the reason behind it, than the act itself. Hence, though there were prescribed sacrifices, God said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice".

Basically you're saying, you are prejudiced, biased and discriminative against gays, because you believe they all are prejudiced, biased and they discriminate? "I hate them, because I think they hate me!" kind of argument.

 

Again, I can totally recognize the sexual prejudice and homophobia in you, based on my own experience. I used to be like that too. Still, I'm a little uncomfortable around gay people, but I haven't found them to be any different (in any major way) in all the other areas of life. They go through the same happiness, sadness, anger, frustration like us, and they bleed like us, they're no different. They're humans, like us.

 

May I ask, how do you view medical complications like babies born with distorted genitalia? There are girls born with a penis, and boys born without. Usually they have to do a sex assignment and surgically make them to either sex, and do which one is closest. So in our society, there's a fraction of people who are female on the outside, but XY on the inside, and male on the outside, but genetically XX. This situation of obscure sexuality is actually more common than people think. Do these people also affect the outcome of the children's future and how they are raised? Do the person who was assigned at birth present a threat to your stable community? And furthermore, there is this famous case of David, who was assigned to be a girl, got hormones and was treated and raised as a girl... but the whole thing failed, because he always felt he was a boy, and later in life did a sex change back to male. So you can see that the sexual identity is within us, not on the outside, or not even in the hormones. The brain is either wired as male or female (or maybe even asexual...)

 

To everyone: interesting points, one and all... however, I don't have the time to go through them all, so I'll answer a couple at length...

 

Firstly, God put me through the trials I went through because I had to "walk a mile in another man's shoes". If I was going to be a minister, and help others as best as one can, I had to experience things from their perspective. People like Bill Gates can give until they're blue in the wallet, but it won't do any good unless they have a deeper reason for giving, and can empathize with those they're giving to. Until that time, I had suffered abuse of all calibers, and various tragedies, but those could never compare to my time on the streets. I actually almost wanted to die. Only then could I truly grasp the depths of hopelessness of the people who have been forced into the role of social pariah, and only when I could understand them personally could I do any lasting and deep good.

 

Secondly... I have had experience interacting with homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual people. My aunt and her lover are lesbian, but my aunt became lesbian in the first place because her husband and father drove her to it. I've known many of my friends who felt somehow forced into the role of gay, lesbian, or transsexual, because of circumstances in their lives, and they were just tired of fighting. I've also known bisexual people, who are bisexual simply because they get the role of friend and lover confounded, or because they can't manage their own libido. Does that mean they're hopelessly perverted monsters, incapable of a second chance? No; but it does mean that, since their sexual orientation is such an integral part of their lives, and was introduced to them under such earth-shattering circumstances, it is difficult to get them to understand that sex is about more than pleasure alone... essentially, they - for the most part, from my experience, - have based their entire existence and all they know on their sexual identity. When they find out that sex isn't so important to warrant an identity be based on it at all, they tend to resist, almost violently in some cases. Eventually, they suffer a breakdown, and they either rebuild on something more substantial, or they never recover. I do feel bad for those who suffer, but I have seen cases where they have actually suffered worse emotional, psychological, and even physical damage from continuing in such a lifestyle.

 

Granted, I don't know it all, and I don't have any way of sifting through all the information to learn it all, but I do have my experiences, and those shared with me. If these experiences are so common to the people I know, then I can't help but think that such a lifestyle choice might be harmful.

 

I've known people who have been so scarred by their lifestyle being based on sexual preference, that they tried to kill themselves. Others can't have a solid relationship because they can't find anyone they really love that is more to them than mere sexual pleasure, and that tends to ruin the relationship when sex is put on such a base and insignificant, almost addictive level for them.

 

There is, from my experience, someone out there for everybody; and, from my experience, that tends to mean there is someone from the opposite sex out there for everyone. Love is not something to be entered into lightly...

 

As for my sexual preference... I won't say that there is anybody out there, who, from time to time, doesn't have sexual thoughts about the same gender. I chose to be straight when I compared what I liked about the general demeanor and nature of a woman to that of a man. As a man, I already have the qualities that I might find attractive in other men, so why not look for someone who has attributes I don't have? As for whether or not I follow the "golden rule"... I don't treat gay, bi or transsexual people any different from others. If two people that are straight are not right for each-other, then I won't approve of their marriage to each-other, either. And, I don't plan to marry (at least, just yet).

 

I guess that's all I have to say about that for now...

 

~AOH~

 

Ah but you still would not give a straight answer...where was your god when you were suffering? Why would he let you get to the point of wanting to die? Sorry but "walk a mile in another's shoes" doesn't cut it as an answer. I am not saying that does not help you understand and sympathize with those who are less fortunate...I am sure it does. But it doesn't mean it was god who made you live through and rescued you from that. Life can suck..sometimes greatly and hopefully we make it out of the depths of despair in one piece. It still doesn't prove the existence of god. If I go through the worst experience of my life (I think most people have at least one time this would apply) and I make it through okay I would be thankful for those who helped me (and no not an imaginary person who never shows him/herself) and also thankful for my own human strength. I think Christianity robs us of our greatest ability as humans..to endure....all on our own. Also I completely and utterly disagree with your claim that only those who have gone through the worst can understand others in that situation. Bill Gates could keep all his money and not donate a dime. That would be his right...but he doesn't. That is called being human...a good and decent human. Not something exclusive to Christians and those who have suffered badly.

 

I spent my entire teen years and part of my adult life with severe anxiety/panic disorder (only later to realize it was caused by Christianity and it's toxic effect on my psychological health). I prayed, begged, and cried to god to help me..to stop this disorder that was destroying me. He never did...not even a little. No answer at all. My mother prayed for me..friends. No answer or relief. Finally, sitting in a doctors office in the middle of a major attack, being slipped a sedative, I was told something that changed everything. A nurse sat down beside me and said....YOU have the power to stop this. Face your fear, whatever it is, and get ahold of this. I was horribly afraid of death. Turned myself into a hypocondriac because of it. But I remembered my first panic attack. It was during bible class and the topic was salvation and hell. How you might not "really" be saved afterall...maybe you didn't mean it and would thus burn in hell. When I look back on it what a messed up doctrine indeed...yes the bible (and don't tell me it is really loving and sweet because you would be lying).

 

So why am I not a Christian anymore? Well there are MANY reasons...new reasons I am reminded of everyday it seems. One I addressed in my last post. Also I have not taken an anxiety medication since January of this year. That was the month I freed myself from delusion. For the first time in a long time I feel at peace.

 

And since you feel the need to tell us all "God Bless" (oh but does he really) I choose to say this. I hope you realize your own human potential, your strength and endurance that got you through the worst of suffering. Hopefully someday you will realize the myth you are devoting your life to.

 

Cheers.

[Unknowing1]

Firstly, God put me through the trials I went through because I had to "walk a mile in another man's shoes". If I was going to be a minister, and help others as best as one can, I had to experience things from their perspective. People like Bill Gates can give until they're blue in the wallet, but it won't do any good unless they have a deeper reason for giving, and can empathize with those they're giving to. Until that time, I had suffered abuse of all calibers, and various tragedies, but those could never compare to my time on the streets. I actually almost wanted to die. Only then could I truly grasp the depths of hopelessness of the people who have been forced into the role of social pariah, and only when I could understand them personally could I do any lasting and deep good.

 

 

Angel, I really am sorry for what happened to you. It shouldn't happen to anyone but unfortunately it does. I'd love to change the world so that no one is ever homeless or ever wants for food on the table or proper medical care but unfortunately it is well outside what I as one individual can do to stop it.

 

I'm glad that you know Bill Gates and people like him enough to know they don't have deeper reasons for giving and that you have lived their life and seen what they have in order to know their reasons for giving are superficial. I don't know them, may or may not have walked in their shoes and can't even begin to know what their exact reasons for wanting to do what they do and don't really care what their reasons are but I do feel fortunate there are people like him out there in the world at least trying and giving of themselves.

 

While I have never been homeless there were times in the past when I was a kid when we went on public assistance to put a roof over our heads and food on the table. I'm thankful that people gave of themselves to help us out regardless of their reasons for doing so. If it made them feel good that's fine because as a beneficiary of their kindness and generosity we were able to make it through a very rough patch and in my opinion they had the right to pat themselves on the back and feel good about what they did.

 

I have to make one comment about some of your ideas. You claim you get your knowledge about things from those around you. There is a whole world out there and it is not limited to just those in your inner circle. People are all different, we have different feelings in different situations. Even if I were to walk in your shoes I might not react the same as you did, nor have the same thoughts or feelings. So if you really want to be a minister and help people, just remember that even though you may have been in circumstances that were similar, your reaction to that situation may not have been the same as the reaction of the person you are ministering to. You need to listen to them and not assume that you know better just because you went through it or feel that the person should be experiencing the feelings that you did. Just walking in someones shoes for a particular circumstance/situation doesn't make you the same, other life experiences factor into the reactions and are what make us who we are and drive how we handle the situations that we face.

[Antlerman]

Quick moderator note to all on use of the quote function:

 

Please try to section out the relevant words of a post to reference when posting a reply to it, rather than quoting the entire 2000 word post you're responding to. If you wish to make reference to an entire post and not specific things, then simply reference the date and post stamp and don't include the entire post contents again. It serves no purpose other than taking up bandwidth for our poor modem users . Example:

 

 

 

Now to AOH: I really don't wish to get embroiled in a debate about homosexuality, as I tend to see it as much more a cultural issue than a religious one (even though religion tends to beat the drum loudly on this for what I feel are political reasons, exploiting general cultural prejudices for a sympathetic vote, as it were. What I will point out to you though is a couple things.

 

I see you in your reasoning processes making classic errors. I see in your interpretation of what you observe "verifications" that support conclusions that come from cultural views, rather that raw data collection. You are falling into the common trap of what's known in psychology as Confirmation Bias.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.

 

Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.

 

Now starting with that common error of reason, I see you make the classic logic fallacy of Hasty Generalization:

 

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

 

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.

2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

 

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

 

1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.

2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.

 

The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.

 

Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case, asking one person what she thinks about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determing what Canadians in general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples are less likely to contain numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles, then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole population of marbles. As the sample size of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected in proprtion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds true for things others than marbles, such as people and their political views.

 

Since Hasty Generalization is committed when the sample (the observed instances) is too small, it is important to have samples that are large enough when making a generalization. The most reliable way to do this is to take as large a sample as is practical. There are no fixed numbers as to what counts as being large enough. If the population in question is not very diverse (a population of cloned mice, for example) then a very small sample would suffice. If the population is very diverse (people, for example) then a fairly large sample would be needed. The size of the sample also depends on the size of the population. Obviously, a very small population will not support a huge sample. Finally, the required size will depend on the purpose of the sample. If Bill wants to know what Joe and Jane think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would (obviously) be large enough. If Bill wants to know what most Australians think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would be far too small.

 

People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one. People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.

 

One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning.

 

One direct challenge to something I saw you say is drawing a conclusion that those you have known who are homosexual who have attempted suicide did so because of their sexuality. I'm not asking for a reply, but have you considered that those reason may "relate" to issues surrounding their homosexuality, rather than being homosexual in and of itself? In other words, they feel alienated, confused, intimidated, underclassed, etc because of the sorts of biases towards homosexuality that is readily apparent in our culture? That if they lived in an accepting community, they would have no issues whatsoever about their identity? Their conflict might rather be much more about not feeling accepted socially, and that would lead anyone to feelings of depression?

 

Finally, I'd like to present you with a link to a site that is about the promotion of religious tolerance (which in this case is largely based in cultural tolerance). It simply present the different views on the subject within the religious world, and is worth your read to possible show more sides to this for your expanded consideration. Here's a brief excerpt from Religious Tolerance's site:

 

We explain the six most common viewpoints that people have about the nature of homosexuality. We recommend that you read this series of essays in order to understand the full range of beliefs in North America.

 

As in most of the topics covered in this web site, we compare and contrast the most common conservative and liberal viewpoints:

 

-A common belief among the most conservative faction is that homosexuality is a behavior -- something that one does. It is a chosen lifestyle which is abnormal, unnatural, and changeable. It is hated by God. It is a mental disorder and/or an addiction. It typically starts during teenage years when a post-pubertal youth decides to become gay or lesbian. The root cause is molestation or poor parenting during the person's childhood.

 

-A common belief among the most liberal faction is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation -- something that one is. It is an unchosen orientation which is normal and natural for a minority of adults. It is always or almost always fixed. It is accepted by God. It is neither a mental disorder or an addiction. Although individuals differ, many believe that a there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, which may or not be triggered in young children by some unknown element in the environment.

 

Suffice to say, I see you, as many, a product of our culture. I would rather share a discussion, rather than exchange blows for the prejudices we've all inherited from our culture on many issues. Understanding and respect is far better for everyone than deepening divides, wouldn't you think?

[Deva]

It seems that you just want me to be prejudiced, and discriminatory, because you want to justify your reason for leaving Christianity. You want every Christian you talk to to be just like you believe you were, because then you have a reason to not go back to Christianity, or anything like it. That is unfair to me, and to everyone else on this board: not only to try to force Christians to fit your generalizations about them, and why they do what they do; but to give the impression that you're a typical ex-Christian, which would mean that all ex-Christians used the same methods you use... even if they don't.

 

Let me ask you this, AOH - Do you think there are any legitimate reasons why a person leaves Christianity?

[Evolution_beyond]

Secondly... I have had experience interacting with homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual people.

 

How many? Under what circumstances? How well did you know them and how many of them did you know well?

 

My aunt and her lover are lesbian, but my aunt became lesbian in the first place because her husband and father drove her to it.

 

Yes, I know of situations like this that seem to cause someone's sexuality to change. So what? If it is painful for someone to be with someone of the opposite sex then I wouldn't expect them to get involved with someone of the opposite sex - and I wouldn't want them to miss out on love either.

 

I've known many of my friends who felt somehow forced into the role of gay, lesbian, or transsexual, because of circumstances in their lives, and they were just tired of fighting.

 

Circumstances such as being unable to function sexually in a heterosexual context because they are more attracted to members of their own gender perhaps?

 

And in the transexual case - circumstances such as a severe case of gender dysphoria that made them feel suicidal whilst living as the gender they were assigned at birth?

 

I've also known bisexual people, who are bisexual simply because they get the role of friend and lover confounded, or because they can't manage their own libido.

 

Do you know that there are bisexual people who are fully capable of being monogamous - and who want to settle down with one partner and start a family and be responsible - but they are still bisexual because they are attracted to members of both genders and they don't judge the potential of a sexual/romantic partner on gender but on the inherent attractiveness of the person and the compatibility of personalities?

 

I'm am sick of biphobic opinions that are so commonly expressed by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. bisexuals are not necessarily promiscuous, not necessarily confused, not necessarily greedy, not necessarily in denial. Some are promiscuous - some are polyamorous rather than monogamous (polyamory is consensual non-monogamy btw - all the partners know about each other) - some bisexuals are possibly confused (being bisexual can be very confusing after all). But there are many bisexuals who are very centred, responsible and monogamous. They just happen to be non-fussy when it comes to a potential partner's gender. In other words they have potential to be attracted to people of either sex. That's all.

 

When they find out that sex isn't so important to warrant an identity be based on it at all, they tend to resist, almost violently in some cases.

 

I agree that sex is not something that should have an identity based around it. In an ideal world people wouldn't have to make such a big point of whether they are gay, straight or bi - because all orientations would be accepted equally and basically it's people's own business what they get up to.

 

I don't see your perspectives as encouraging such a state of affairs. So I guess people will still have to affirm their gayness or bisexuality in the face of such bigotry.

 

Oh, and we form identities around all sorts of things. I am a science fiction fan. I am a fan of electronic music - and also a fan of heavy metal music.

 

Why in the hell can't I also say that I happen to be submissive sexually, happen to be bisexual, happen to have a foot fetish etc etc? It's all part of who I am.

 

I've known people who have been so scarred by their lifestyle being based on sexual preference, that they tried to kill themselves. Others can't have a solid relationship because they can't find anyone they really love that is more to them than mere sexual pleasure, and that tends to ruin the relationship when sex is put on such a base and insignificant, almost addictive level for them.

 

There is, from my experience, someone out there for everybody; and, from my experience, that tends to mean there is someone from the opposite sex out there for everyone. Love is not something to be entered into lightly...

 

Pure bigotry.

 

As for my sexual preference... I won't say that there is anybody out there, who, from time to time, doesn't have sexual thoughts about the same gender.

 

So we're all bisexual but people choose which desires to act upon? So wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to be honest and say they are bisexual - and keep their options open with regards to potential partners? And how can christianity claim that homosexuality is unnatural or ungodly if we all have potential to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex?

[Neon Genesis]

As for whether or not I follow the "golden rule"... I don't treat gay, bi or transsexual people any different from others. If two people that are straight are not right for each-other, then I won't approve of their marriage to each-other, either. And, I don't plan to marry (at least, just yet).

 

I guess that's all I have to say about that for now...

 

~AOH~

But you don't think ANY homosexual or bisexual couple is right for each other whereas you're a selective cherry picker with when it comes to heterosexual couples and that makes you a homophobe. And who died and made you king to decide which couples should be right for each other? If consenting adults are happy with their sex lives whether they're homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, monogamous, or polyamorous, what right do you have to "approve" of their relationship or deny them equal rights? Doesn't the bible say to pick the shard out of your own eye before you pick the shards out of other peoples eyes? Have you picked every shard out of your eye and are completely without any sin? If you haven't, then the bible says you're a liar because the bible says all of us have sinned. And so if you've sinned, then you haven't picked every shard out of your eye, and if you haven't picked every shard out of your eye, you don't have the right to pick the shard out of my eye just because I'm gay and you can't stand that. And your claims that you aren't homophobic because you hang around gay people doesn't prove anything other than that you're a hypocrite. It's like saying "I'm not racist, I just don't think blacks have the right to marry whites!"

[Ouroboros]

I'd also like to point out that you are the one insinuating that I'm discriminating against gay people. If I did, why would I associate with them at all?

Okay. But there were a couple of things in your post that really did sound like you claimed that the homosexuals have a choice, which isn't true for many. Maybe for some, but in general it's not, since the studies were done scientifically and seriously. So when you hint to that homosexuals should somehow make the "right" decision and be straight, you are bypassing reality.

 

So you say you're not prejudice. Well, you did generalize on the whole group that they are bad for society, based on your limited experience or religious indoctrination, that is prejudice. You can call it whatever you want, but it is prejudice. And why is that? Because you don't have experience of meeting and knowing every single gay person in this world. Not until you can talk to all of them, get to know all of them, can you claim that they are in general such-and-such.

 

White supremacists don't associate with black people - or people of any other color, for that matter, - but I have friends and co-workers who are gay and bi. I even have relatives who are gay. I don't think any differently about them than I do about anyone else in a similar situation or frame of mind. If straight people get caught up on sex, I don't approve of that, either.

You have generalized the group, based on your own experience, and however valid your experience is or not, it is prejudice. Perhaps you're not homophobic, I will grant you that, and take back my statement that you are, and say sorry for calling you such, but still you do judge the group based on generalized terms, mostly contributed from religious ideas.

 

It seems that you just want me to be prejudiced, and discriminatory, because you want to justify your reason for leaving Christianity.

Eh... no.

 

This has nothing to do with me leaving Christianity. I'm not sure why you think that. I was homophobic even after my de-conversion, and still am to some degree.

 

I used to know a couple of gay guys where one of them had AIDS, and his partner never left him. They live together, as far as I know, they still do. They were extremely serious about not fooling around or cheating. How come my experience is opposite to yours? By your experience and supreme knowledge, this couple can't exist. Or do you admit that there is a chance that you exaggerate by saying that they in general are promiscuous?

 

You want every Christian you talk to to be just like you believe you were, because then you have a reason to not go back to Christianity, or anything like it.

This has nothing to do with me being Christian or not. I know you're trying to attack me because you got offended, but you did present a view of a group of people that you only can support based on your experience with a handful of people. (Like, 0.000000001% of the world population?)

 

That is unfair to me, and to everyone else on this board: not only to try to force Christians to fit your generalizations about them, and why they do what they do; but to give the impression that you're a typical ex-Christian, which would mean that all ex-Christians used the same methods you use... even if they don't.

Yes, I tend to generalize Christians, and so far, over the years on this website, I have talked to more Christians who are bigots than I even expected. There are few, now and then, who are honest and truthful to themselves and others, but plenty just ramble on with attitude based mostly on their religious beliefs, without ever really stepping outside their indoctrinations and try to see why they believe the things they do. They tend to just push on with their strange and invalid concepts, only because they're afraid of being wrong, afraid of believing the wrong things, or even afraid their whole religion could be at risk. So they rather fight, insanely, to support their ideas, and it usually end up with them leaving. The few that stay, are the ones that realize the world isn't as black-and-white as they first thought. They come to their senses, and calm down their dogmatic rhetoric and extreme prejudice towards all non-Christians.

 

But I do admit, yes, I have a prejudice against Christians, but few prove me wrong, and I always welcome that. I tend to like and respect people who can stand up and take a challenge, but also prove me wrong in this. I've seen way too many hypocrites, and if you are not a hypocrite, then prove it by not being one.

 

Yes, there are some heterosexual parents who are not fit to be parents. They don't get to keep their kids, either. Yes, there are some parents who use home-schooling to manipulate their kids: they shouldn't be allowed to home-school, either. However, do we just ban raising kids in monogamous heterosexual households, and home-schooling to keep kids away from certain school districts that might pose dangers to their children (like if there is a high rate of gang activity, or drug abuse; or if there is a high probability of persecution just because the children are different)? The answer is "no". In those cases, we're not talking about a lifestyle based on sexuality. We're talking about things that are more important than sexuality.

So you're against homosexuals raising kids, because some number of them would be unfit (based on your experience), while you're not against parents raising kids and beating them and indoctrinate them into religious dogma?

 

What you presented before was: you have experience of a few unfit homosexuals, and that made you conclude: they should not raise kids.

 

Statistics and everyones experience is: there are many parents who beat, mistreat and indoctrinate their kids in false ideas, but our conclusion from that is: let them keep on doing it, because that's their God given right to abuse their kids.

 

Do you see there's a discrepancy here? You allow harm to kids based on your religion, and deny some groups you just don't like.

 

And you don't call that religious biased prejudice?

 

I ask you: why are you prejudiced against Christians? Not all of us are that way, ya know...

Well then, prove it.

 

Explain again why homosexuality is in general, alway, everywhere, for everyone, and all society, harmful. (And provide some valid arguments instead of anecdotal evidence.)

 

God bless, and I hope you understand my point better this time than you did last time.

Honestly? Not much.

 

 

And understand this:

 

If you, based on a few, can say "All homosexuals", then why can't I, based on a few Christians, say that all Christians are bigots? Why is it that only you have the right to generalize a group based on a few experiences, while I don't? Does the Bible give you that right? Is the Bible the badge, or the right, to be special prejudice at will? Maybe I should get a Bible, and then be prejudiced against Christians, using the book!? ... well, I do. We use the Bible a lot on this website... against Christians.

 

This means, I have the right to be judgmental against Christians as much as I want, because you have, by your own behavior, validated that behavior.

[Ouroboros]

Secondly... I have had experience interacting with homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual people. My aunt and her lover are lesbian, but my aunt became lesbian in the first place because her husband and father drove her to it. I've known many of my friends who felt somehow forced into the role of gay, lesbian, or transsexual, because of circumstances in their lives, and they were just tired of fighting. I've also known bisexual people, who are bisexual simply because they get the role of friend and lover confounded, or because they can't manage their own libido. Does that mean they're hopelessly perverted monsters, incapable of a second chance? No; but it does mean that, since their sexual orientation is such an integral part of their lives, and was introduced to them under such earth-shattering circumstances, it is difficult to get them to understand that sex is about more than pleasure alone... essentially, they - for the most part, from my experience, - have based their entire existence and all they know on their sexual identity. When they find out that sex isn't so important to warrant an identity be based on it at all, they tend to resist, almost violently in some cases. Eventually, they suffer a breakdown, and they either rebuild on something more substantial, or they never recover. I do feel bad for those who suffer, but I have seen cases where they have actually suffered worse emotional, psychological, and even physical damage from continuing in such a lifestyle.

I must say, you have the weirdest and strangest family and culture around you.

 

There has been experiments where they tried to force the sexuality on children, and it was noticed that it doesn't work or hold up for long. There's a famous example of that, which I won't go into right now, but if you start study psychology, you will most likely read a lot about this case. And the outcome from these experiments are that we most of the time do not chose our sexual preference or identity, but from your quite twilight-zone like community you live in, it doesn't work that way. I suggest that you actually make contact with some of the researchers at Johns Hopkins and give them your input, because these things you have lived through is actually quite ground-breaking. Sexuality as a choice. Who would have thought that more than 100 years of research could be so wrong... I guess masturbation do cause blindness and early death too...

 

Granted, I don't know it all, and I don't have any way of sifting through all the information to learn it all, but I do have my experiences, and those shared with me. If these experiences are so common to the people I know, then I can't help but think that such a lifestyle choice might be harmful.

No, I must object. You do have all the answers. Every encounter with any homosexual you have ever had, and all the homosexuals you have in your family, they all agree, homosexuality is a choice, or something that is forced upon you and you can make yourself get out from.

 

I'm serious here, you do have to share this experience with someone at the Johns Hopkins, because they have studied these things the last 50 years, and they have more and more evidence sexual identity and preference is biological, but your experience (to 100%) proves the opposite.

 

After all, hundreds and hundreds of people they have studied must be completely wrong, because you have a full 100% hit-rate of it to be a choice.

 

I've known people who have been so scarred by their lifestyle being based on sexual preference, that they tried to kill themselves. Others can't have a solid relationship because they can't find anyone they really love that is more to them than mere sexual pleasure, and that tends to ruin the relationship when sex is put on such a base and insignificant, almost addictive level for them.

It's amazing. So amazing...

 

They pick their sexual identity based on their sexual desires.... wait a minute... they like it too? You mean, those homosexuals, they are attracted to the same sex, because they feel a sexual attraction to them? But... you said they were forced into it. They can't like having sex with a toaster, even after they have been forced to it once. Even if someone forced me into some sex I don't like, it doesn't make me like it... or do you say that forced sex, causes people to like that sex? So, then, raping someone will eventually make the victim like to be raped?

 

I don't know, there's something that doesn't add up in your presentation of things. Are you sure you don't exaggerate things here? Making it sound more plausible than it is? Twisting a few facts here and there, spinning it, just so it sounds like "all and always?"

 

You also say they try to kill themselves over this choice of lifestyle? I don't know. To me that's a sign of desperation and frustration. It means... they can not change. They rather die, than change, because they most likely tried but can't. Which means, it's innate, and not learned or chosen.

 

There is, from my experience, someone out there for everybody; and, from my experience, that tends to mean there is someone from the opposite sex out there for everyone. Love is not something to be entered into lightly...

Love? You say homosexuals can love each other, or do you say they can't? If a gay couple love each other, is it because they were forced to love each other, or is it a "false" love? Is their love only the sex thing? ... so they like it then? They like the sex with the same gender, because they were forced into it... why don't someone just force them to have sex with the opposite sex and they have relearned? Oh, yeah, I forgot, that has been tried about 5,000 times, but failed...

 

Take the preacher the other year who came out as a homosexual. He was hardcore against homosexuality. And was married to a woman. He had been fooling around for a very, very long time, with male prostitutes. Do you really think those desires in him were chosen or forced by his aunt?

 

As for my sexual preference... I won't say that there is anybody out there, who, from time to time, doesn't have sexual thoughts about the same gender. I chose to be straight when I compared what I liked about the general demeanor and nature of a woman to that of a man. As a man, I already have the qualities that I might find attractive in other men, so why not look for someone who has attributes I don't have? As for whether or not I follow the "golden rule"... I don't treat gay, bi or transsexual people any different from others. If two people that are straight are not right for each-other, then I won't approve of their marriage to each-other, either. And, I don't plan to marry (at least, just yet).

Well, do do treat gay different than straight:

 

Straight:

- not fit for each other, don't get married

- fit for each other, get married

 

Gay:

- not fit for each other, don't get married

- fit for each other, still, don't get married, because Angel of Hope is certain society will collapse and kids will be harmed.

 

There is a difference in your attitude, and you should start seeing it by now.

 

There is a large number of straight couples who beat their kids, abuse the wife, and a large number get divorced, and a very large number cheats. And that's the straight couples. And you're telling me that this is approved of in straight couples, but when it comes to homosexual couples, suddenly the harm principle drives the decision.

 

Why don't we outlaw straight marriages? It is just as MUCH harmful! And to tell you the truth, on our street more than 50% have cheated, divorced or abused someone. I'd say, my family is one of the few exceptions (and we're not even Christian, Jewish or Muslim - which seems to be the majority on the street). We don't have any gay couples on this street, but based on my experience of all the religious couples with problems, the statistics on our street proves that NO RELIGIOUS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY! Is that a good generalization from my personal experience? The few couples without problem are agnostic or atheists, so I rest my case.

 

(And btw, get this right, I'm as straight as they come. So don't think my arguments against you are personal. My arguments are based on studies and the belief in fairness and equality as human beings. Religion doesn't allow that.)

[Neon Genesis]

Why don't we outlaw straight marriages? It is just as MUCH harmful! And to tell you the truth, on our street more than 50% have cheated, divorced or abused someone. I'd say, my family is one of the few exceptions (and we're not even Christian, Jewish or Muslim - which seems to be the majority on the street). We don't have any gay couples on this street, but based on my experience of all the religious couples with problems, the statistics on our street proves that NO RELIGIOUS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY! Is that a good generalization from my personal experience? The few couples without problem are agnostic or atheists, so I rest my case.

What I don't get is why don't we outlaw divorce? The bible says that divorce is a sin too but the government allows it anyway and the world hasn't ended yet. Ironically, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they done studies that show Christians have the highest divorce rates?

[Ouroboros]

What I don't get is why don't we outlaw divorce? The bible says that divorce is a sin too but the government allows it anyway and the world hasn't ended yet. Ironically, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they done studies that show Christians have the highest divorce rates?

Yes, I think there was some study showing that Christians were less faithful and had the highest divorce rate. It wouldn't surprise me if the abuse would be more prevalent in Christian homes too. (At least from my experience, it seems reasonable. After all, I'm just drawing conclusions from subjective and circumstantial evidence as Angel does.)

 

So to avoid harm to children, Christians shouldn't be allowed to marry, and if they still do, they should be severely penalized if they cheat or try to divorce.

[Angel of Hope]

Okay... first, let me start by saying I have seen some good arguments against me, and I respect the intelligence used by those people to construct those arguments. It does appear that we will never agree on everything, and we might not be able to understand each-other on a lot of subjects, but I do respect you for your intelligence, dedication to what you believe are the facts, and passion. Even Christ said, "I would that ye were either cold or hot". On the one hand, I am "hot" toward the subject of Christianity, while you're cold toward it. However, we do sincerely believe what we believe nonetheless, and that is something that deserves the utmost respect.

 

Secondly, I never said I had experience with every gay person out there. In fact, I admitted the converse: I have had a somewhat limited exposure to the homosexual, bisexual and transsexual communities, in comparison with some. However, I can only base my conclusions on what I know to be true personally. Statistics, after all, can be "fudged" to indicate one conclusion, when in fact a different one is true. That's why I trust individual experience over statistics: you can't fake what actually happened to you, or what you have learned yourself, by example.

 

Thirdly... as to the subject of gay marriage (why we can't move on to something else, I'll never know), I never said that either gay people, or straight people, were perfect parents. I said, if a gay person is capable of raising kids in an unbiased and relaxed environment, without pressure, I have no problem with it. The question is, can it be true for that individual, in that circumstance? The same standard applies to straight people. As for whether gay people should be allowed to marry, as a symbol of their love... Marriage is about love and monogamy, yes, but it is about more than that. The couple becomes one in everything they do. I would, personally, like to see a day when there is no more need for adoption, because all the biological parents in the world become responsible, loving, and caring parents to their kids, and can raise them successfully. I don't think that people who are not ready for kids should have sex, or get pregnant. Quite simply, and I don't see how anyone could disagree with this, if people only lost their virginity to the person they want to spend their lives with, and start a family with, and they are prepared for the challenge, there would be no more need for adoption... likewise, there would be no more need for abortion, for whatever reason; no more need for paternity tests; and no more problem for gay people trying to start a family. Answer me this: would you rather have a kid that you knew was not related to you, or would you rather have a kid you knew was the product of your own seed? Adoption is necessary for now, and thus a good thing; however, I personally would rather have a child of my own first... and, until men that are born men can get pregnant naturally, or women that are born women can naturally impregnate other natural women, I think it would be a good idea for "gay" people to have a family with a member of the opposite sex first... especially someone they can love of the opposite sex.

 

Fourthly, there are many kinds of love. Who's to say that everybody is born understanding perfectly the difference between one kind of love and another? Would you say that people who commit incest should be allowed to marry, because they're in love with each-other? Would you say that's even possible?

 

As to the subject of forced affection... it's a very real psychological phenomenon. In fact, it's similar to that of Stockholm syndrome: the more time you spend with someone, even if they force you to do something you don't originally want to do, the more you begin to develop an emotional attachment to them... and the more pleasurable the activity becomes, which was once undesirable to you. I've known girls who said they hated certain kinds of sex, because it felt bad to them the first time... then, when they were manipulated into having that kind of sex enough times, they began to cope with it... eventually, they had convinced themselves they liked it. I could even give you names, but I'd rather keep their identities confidential.

 

As to religious injustice... It is true that some Christians, just like some non-Christians, take their beliefs to an extreme and unacceptable level. However, not all Christians do, just like not all non-Christians do. Ezekiel says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die". I, too, believe that every individual should pay for their own sins. The consequences could, unfortunately, affect other members of their groups, but the punishment should rest squarely on the shoulders of the offender.

 

Marriage and divorce... Divorce for no good reason is against God's Law. Christ said, "if a man put away his wife, save for the cause of adultery, he has caused her to sin". I take that to mean that, if a man is divorcing his wife for no good reason, he has sinned, and is causing his wife to sin as well... Christ and Ezekiel also propose a standard: Christ said "if anyone should cause one of these little children to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were tied around his neck, and he were cast into the sea.", and Ezekiel said "When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely die; and thou givest not him a warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand". That standard is that if a person causes another person to commit a sin, either by keeping silent about it, or by manipulating them into it, the person who caused that person to sin is guilty, even more-so than the one who actually committed it.

 

Finally, if I have offended anyone, I am sorry. I go by what I observe, and sometimes I tend to read too much into things. If I have unfairly judged you, I didn't mean to, and I ask you to forgive me for letting my mind run away with me, so to speak.

 

~AOH~

[Kuroikaze]

However, I can only base my conclusions on what I know to be true personally. Statistics, after all, can be "fudged" to indicate one conclusion, when in fact a different one is true. That's why I trust individual experience over statistics: you can't fake what actually happened to you, or what you have learned yourself, by example.

 

Hans already explained why this is a poor way to make choices. Experience is actually a pretty bad thing to trust because we often misinterpret our experiences based on or own biases and preconceived notions.

 

Thirdly... as to the subject of gay marriage (why we can't move on to something else, I'll never know),

 

I'll answer this, as it was me who first brought up the topic. You made a claim that you do poorly because you disagree with them, I challenged you to defend that claim by asking you to give us real life examples. So far your words have failed to prove your claim. Sure, we can move on if you wish, but as it stands now we are pretty convinced that you DO treat these people badly.

 

Finally, if I have offended anyone, I am sorry. I go by what I observe, and sometimes I tend to read too much into things. If I have unfairly judged you, I didn't mean to, and I ask you to forgive me for letting my mind run away with me, so to speak.

 

No need to apologize, your actions were to be expected by you considering what your religion teaches you to think about us, it didn't hurt my feelings in the least. However, you do the same thing to homosexuals. If you realize the is a problem in your personality why don't you work extra hard to remedy it?

[Ouroboros]

...

Finally, if I have offended anyone, I am sorry. I go by what I observe, and sometimes I tend to read too much into things. If I have unfairly judged you, I didn't mean to, and I ask you to forgive me for letting my mind run away with me, so to speak.

I can see that you're starting to get the point...

 

We all do the same mistakes, and I do it quite often, but I'm lucky to have people on this forum to set me straight. That's the real point I wanted you to understand. Regardless of how you feel about a certain group of society, it's still important to understand that many times our feelings are not well rooted in reality, statistics, reason or logic, but totally and fully just in our subconscious fear of the unknown and the things we have a hard time understanding.

 

I am fully aware that I tend to judge Christians harshly, and I do so from a multiple perspectives: first I have found the majority of them who come here to be rather rude -- really, the majority of them, not just a few --, and secondly I many times put the visiting Christians through my own little "test" to see if they're honest about discussing and even conceding points when they realize they stepped a bit too far. And you have, so you passed the test.

 

You have to understand that no-one can really ever get to a better understanding of things, unless they're willing to be wrong and change when they get their faults revealed. And also, sometimes we get to a point where you know you react and feel in certain ways, without having a good explanation for it, but still know that this is the case. You know yourself. We're not perfect, but to know one's own faults -- even if they're not correct yet -- is always the first step to become a better person. Right?

[Purple]

I would, personally, like to see a day when there is no more need for adoption, because all the biological parents in the world become responsible, loving, and caring parents to their kids, and can raise them successfully. I don't think that people who are not ready for kids should have sex, or get pregnant. Quite simply, and I don't see how anyone could disagree with this, if people only lost their virginity to the person they want to spend their lives with, and start a family with, and they are prepared for the challenge, there would be no more need for adoption... likewise, there would be no more need for abortion, for whatever reason; no more need for paternity tests; and no more problem for gay people trying to start a family. Answer me this: would you rather have a kid that you knew was not related to you, or would you rather have a kid you knew was the product of your own seed? Adoption is necessary for now, and thus a good thing; however, I personally would rather have a child of my own first... and, until men that are born men can get pregnant naturally, or women that are born women can naturally impregnate other natural women, I think it would be a good idea for "gay" people to have a family with a member of the opposite sex first... especially someone they can love of the opposite sex.

 

Actaully, as long as people die there will be a need for adoption. Also there are more reasons for abortion, other than a woman not being married or partnered with the father. Adoption, abortion and divorce do not exist only because some people are immoral or irresponsible.

 

We'd all like to live in a perfect world where all parents not only love their children but have the emotional skills to raise them well. We'd all love to live in a world where parents never die before their children are old enough to take care of themselves. We'd all love to live in a world where there was no illnesses and all pregnacies could end in a live birth. We do not live in that world.