Medical Questions > Debate Forums > General Debate Forum

Why Does the West Accept Homosexuality? (Page 2)


September 13th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Yes, I know evolution is the most logical thing out there right now. I don't "believe" in evolution. I have learned the facts for myself and have seen that they make sense.

But what about everything else that I said?

I am clearly not excusing bad behavior. We have big brains, and we know better. I think it is far more honorable to place our fabricated morals and decisions in our own hands than to say our morals and actions are determined by a supernatural being.

Darnit, the quotes are misbehaving again aren't they?

milletics wrote:
Eiri wrote:
As humans, products of nature, it is "natural" for us to learn. That is our evolutionary advantage. Some animals have claws, some have camoflauge. We have larger brains.

Is it beneficial to our environment to pollute? No. But there are animals and plants that "destroy" their own niches as well. If a winding tree vine grew unchecked, it would kill every tree in the forest.

The "problem" is that humans do not currently have a predator to keep us in check. Disease has tried its best but our brains have allowed us to adapt to that as well.

Now, as sentient creatures we are aware of all of this. Unlike a winding vine that needs a predator to halt its progress, we are smart enough to do it ourselves.


Thats the difference. I say God is my God and created us and you think nature is.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 13th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
milletics wrote:
Eiri wrote:
As humans, products of nature, it is "natural" for us to learn. That is our evolutionary advantage. Some animals have claws, some have camoflauge. We have larger brains.

Is it beneficial to our environment to pollute? No. But there are animals and plants that "destroy" their own niches as well. If a winding tree vine grew unchecked, it would kill every tree in the forest.

The "problem" is that humans do not currently have a predator to keep us in check. Disease has tried its best but our brains have allowed us to adapt to that as well.

Now, as sentient creatures we are aware of all of this. Unlike a winding vine that needs a predator to halt its progress, we are smart enough to do it ourselves.


That doesn't make any sense. Don't you believe that 'god' created nature? And we're part of nature?

Thats the difference. I say God is my God and created us and you think nature is.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 13th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
As a spiritual person, I say god and nature are synonymous.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 13th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Even with God=nature, the whole thing I'm saying still makes sense.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 13th, 2007
Experienced User
maybe because we are enlightened and try to judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, sexual preference, or religion.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 13th, 2007
Experienced User
Think about the bumper sticker. "What would Jesus do?" People don't really think to deeply about that.

If Jesus met a homosexual that was kind to his fellow man, caring to the people around him and alwaus willing to lend a hand to the less fortunate.

Do you think that Jesus would say to him " You're a very caring person. You love the people around you. You have goodness in your heart. Too bad you're going to hell."

I really don't think so. I believe that Jesus would love that person and accept them.

It is the content of the character that I'm most concerned about with people.

I don't understand homosexuality. I don't understand why a man would like a man or a woman would like a woman, but I really don't care either. If they are truly happy, good for them, because that's what we all really want. To be happy.

I think that people that worry and codemn other people are not really happy with themselves.

The problem with organized religion is the hypocricy of it. The bible was written by man. Hell was invented to scare people by man.

The Catholic religion condemns homosexuality, yet Catholic priests are synonymous with sexually abusing young boys and how do they deal with it? By moving priests to different churches and paying off the victims.

It's funny to see the these people in the religious right get caught for the very thing they are speaking out against. What hypocricy!

There is too much hate in this world in the name of God. There is too much death in this world in the name of God and it has always been that way.

I love Jesus, but I do not like his fan club.


As far as God nature and man. Yes man is part of nature, but man got too arrgogant and turned his back on nature and in turn is now destroying nature. Yet up until lately has strongly denied it.

Funny how the same leaders that denied what we are doing to this world are also the ones that are so self righteously judging others lifestyles.


Eric
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 13th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eric;

I like the way you think. that was nicely written.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 13th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I personally find it quite amusing that the politicians that are denouncing gay marriage are the ones asking for gay sex under bathroom stalls.

Rolling Eyes
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 13th, 2007
Experienced User
Why thank you sillychick Very Happy


Eric
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Experienced User
I don't know too much about homosexuality but I think I read somewhere that it was a part of natural selection to slow down overpopulation.
And man technically is a part of nature, but due to human's brains, man was able to create remedies for basically any problem that comes are way (some diseases like cancer are still a problem). Polio should have wiped a good chunk of us out. Hell, even chicken pox. Most of the people you see should have died someway or another but was saved by man's creations. Man has been able to almost completely avoid natural selection altogether (although a few idiots seem to get past the barrior).
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
I'm all for gays and gay rights. Is homosexuality natural? I don't know. I can't think of any homosexual animals (please correct me if I'm wrong). I can think of bisexual ones. With bonobos for example, the females will get it on with each other while in heat. I can't see how a species could survive if homosexuality was natural.

When it comes to humans, we're not struggling for the survival of species. Therefore homosexuality can thrive without an affect on our species. I do believe it's something you're born with and therefor it's not wrong. People who claim homosexuality is a choice are just idiots. Who the hell would choose to be gay?! Why would someone choose a lifestyle that's frowned upon by society? What makes me even angrier are the people who then say "But they don't have to act on it." I know that if everbody else was gay and I was told that it was wrong to be straight, I'd tell everyone to go to hell.

So, natural? I don't know.

Wrong? I think not.

Live and let live
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Experienced User
If it exsists in nature and is not artificial, than it's natural. It may not be common, but it's still natural.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
"If Jesus met a homosexual that was kind to his fellow man, caring to the people around him and alwaus willing to lend a hand to the less fortunate.

Do you think that Jesus would say to him " You're a very caring person. You love the people around you. You have goodness in your heart. Too bad you're going to hell."

Jesus wouldnt say that and neither does the Catholic Church - there is a big difference between a person who is attracted to the same sex and him being Gay, this is where the misunderstanding on the churches postion occurs.

The Church does not condemn homosexuals, it condemns homosexuality - It does not condemn Adulters it condemns adultery.

Jesus Christ would praise that man as would the church, but Jesus would also make it known to him that to engage in the homosexual act was wrong. A man with attraction to men has the choice to engage in the homosexual act, this is wrong but forgivness, reconcilliation is always possible. To engage in the homosexual act and consider that it is not wrong is to be what is known as... GAY

The Church condmens neither the man who abstains nor the sinner but the sin.

Even when the man engages in the homosexual act, he can obtain forgivness, but the church can not grant forgivness to the man who willfully engages in the act in belief that it is not sinful, although the church still does not condmen him, in effect he has chosen to condemn himself, he has rejected the church the has not failed to accept him.

"Catholic priests are synonymous with sexually abusing young boys and how do they deal with it?"

Yet if you look at the scandal, it was only very few priests, less the 1% which is less than the national average were synomnyns with it. Also if you look at the vast majority of the cases you will see that the priests themselves were attracted to males and most of them considered themselves Gay.

Also it has recently been in the newspapers in my country that the first male couple to adopt/foster children have been imprisoned for sexually assulting the little boys in their care.

Now dont get me wrong I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. What I am saying is those who engage in depraved sexual acts are more likely to engage in pedophilia than a person who has never engaged in depraved sexual acts.... just as those who smokes marjuana are more likely to take cocain than someone who has never used drugs.

I am not saying marjuana is as bad as cocain or homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia.

neither am I saying that all people who smoke marjuana take cocain or all those who have never took drugs will never take cocain.

Neither am I saying that all homosexuals will engage in pedophilia or all those who have never engaged in depraved sex will not.

What I am saying is it is more likely.

"It's funny to see the these people in the religious right get caught for the very thing they are speaking out against"

I find this very offensive, I am not homosexual or pedophile, not everyone who is religious are you know!!!!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
"If it exsists in nature and is not artificial, than it's natural. It may not be common, but it's still natural. "

never seen a dog mating with its offspirng, never seen a dog trying to mount a pup?

Have you never heard of the "fall of nature"?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Experienced User
QUOTE "Jesus wouldnt say that and neither does the Catholic Church - there is a big difference between a person who is attracted to the same sex and him being Gay" UNQUOTE

What's the difference? Them not acting on it? That is the only difference I can see in this statement. So as long as thy don't fall in love with someone and show their feelings for them, they're ok with the church? Wow, that's very big of the church to do that.

Don't compare adultery with homosexuality. People choose to cheat on their spouses. People do not choose to be homosexuals.

AND for the church to say as long as they surpress their homosexuality everything is just peachy is ridiculious. Imagine if someone told you to surpress your feelings for someone you loved and don't ever act on those feelings or you would go to hell. ( a man made up place). How would you feel?

What kind of life is it to have to surpress your feelings all your life? People just want to be happy. How happy can a person who is chained to the morals of a church ( with years of hypocricy in it's history mind you) be for the rest of their lives?

When you condemn homosexuality, you are essentially condemning that person, because you are condemning something that they didn't choose to be.

It kind of reminds of the olden days. When the church was against interracial marriage and a black person couldn't marry a white person and visa versa. Oh and it was in the name of GOD. We are all equal we were told, but we are equal but seperate.

Preachers were quoting scripture out of the bible to legitmate their bigotry against interracial marriage back then.



This was the gay marriage issue of it's day and it was the religious right that was spouting off this crap.

So would you say that interracial marriage is wrong? The religious people before you back then did. So do you think that was wrong or right?

By the way, I'm white and my wife is Japanese. So I take great offense to this crap that was spouted off in the name of God.

Also, my wife is budhist. I am technically a Southern Babtist. I'm curious on this issue too. Does the church see my wife going to hell because she is not Christian?

To say that homosexuals are more apt to commit sexual abuse is wrong. There is a vast majority more of straight people commiting sexual abuse than homosexuals.

People like you always focus on the deviant acts of homosexuals. Do some homosexuals practice deviant acts? Sure they do, BUT SO DO A LOT OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!

MY QUOTE "It's funny to see the these people in the religious right get caught for the very thing they are speaking out against"

Well I'm sorry you find my quote offensive, but you should blame the people (that happen to be part of the Religious Right) that are speaking out against homosexuality and other issues that are getting caught for the very same thing they are condemning.

Don't blame me because I brought it up. Blame the hypocrite you made him or herself look like a idiot.


Eric
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Enlightened Uselessness wrote:
I don't know too much about homosexuality but I think I read somewhere that it was a part of natural selection to slow down overpopulation.
And man technically is a part of nature, but due to human's brains, man was able to create remedies for basically any problem that comes are way (some diseases like cancer are still a problem). Polio should have wiped a good chunk of us out. Hell, even chicken pox. Most of the people you see should have died someway or another but was saved by man's creations. Man has been able to almost completely avoid natural selection altogether (although a few idiots seem to get past the barrior).

Yes! Doesn't it make a lot of sense? We don't need every part of the population to be reproducing anymore, and in fact overpopulation is more detrimental than unchecked baby-making. That is a new aspect I'd never thought of! I had of course considered the fact that homosexuality had started appearing more due to our large and stable population, but I hadn't make the link to population control! Smile

And I'm glad someone else gets the fact that we are indeed a part of nature.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Experienced User
Did someone say we're not a part of nature? That's just arrogant.



Eric
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
UCanQuit wrote:
Did someone say we're not a part of nature? That's just arrogant.



Eric

Yep. The hard-core christians on here believe humans are not animals and not a real part of nature, that we are "superior" to it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 14th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Ah you poor misinformed soul.

"It kind of reminds of the olden days. When the church was against interracial marriage and a black person couldn't marry a white person and visa versa. "

That has NEVER EVER been the case, your thinking of interreligious marriage where the church stressed the benefits and importance of marriage between people of the same faith and the complications of interfaith marriages.

"What's the difference? Them not acting on it? That is the only difference I can see in this statement. So as long as thy don't fall in love with someone and show their feelings for them, they're ok with the church?"

Your statement is erronious and unthoughtout ...there is nothing wrong with loving people of the same Gender, I know I love a lot of people the same gender as me, one of my parents is the same gender as me and I dont have to have incest to show my feelings for them.

"Don't compare adultery with homosexuality. People choose to cheat on their spouses. People do not choose to be homosexuals."

False analogy!!!!

People dont choose who they are attracted too, they choose to have sex with them or not. A female who is attracted to another male apart from her husband does not choose to be attracted to the other male, but she chooses to have sex with him or not. A man who is attracted to other men does not choose to be attracted to other men but he chooses to have sex with them or not.

"Imagine if someone told you to surpress your feelings for someone you loved and don't ever act on those feelings or you would go to hell. ( a man made up place). How would you feel? "

I wouldnt be bothered if indeed it were a man made up place. If it were a real place then and I only think it man made then i would be ingnrant of the trouble I was in. Finally if it were a real place and I believed it were I would be thankful to those who told me.

"What kind of life is it to have to surpress your feelings all your life?"

When it benefits mankind and perhaps your eternal happiness then its a galant life.

"How happy can a person who is chained to the morals of a church ( with years of hypocricy in it's history mind you) be for the rest of their lives?"

If we are made by God and destined to work for God how can we be happy doing anything else?

How happy are you, do you even understand happiness, have you ever been truely happy?

"When you condemn homosexuality, you are essentially condemning that person, because you are condemning something that they didn't choose to be."


A person is not homosexuality that is ludicris!!!

A person may be homosexual but he is certainly not homosexuality.

We condemn the act of homosexuality not the homosexual.

"So would you say that interracial marriage is wrong? The religious people before you back then did. So do you think that was wrong or right? "

Unless your talking about one or two of the protestant faiths that I do not know about, your mistaking.

"By the way, I'm white and my wife is Japanese. So I take great offense to this crap that was spouted off in the name of God. "

You can rest assured that the catholic Church has always believed that interacial marriage was a Good thing for obvious reasons.... it is one of the reasons we are hated by the Ku Klux Klan.... perhaps thats the religion your thinking about.... they still believe that way.

"To say that homosexuals are more apt to commit sexual abuse is wrong. There is a vast majority more of straight people commiting sexual abuse than homosexuals. "

your unclear... are you saying

1 the vast majority of pedophiles are straight?

Or

2 are you saying the vast majority of straight people are pedophiles?

If it is number one, then I simply say you can hardly call pedophillia "straight"

If it is number two, I think I would never take your point of view seriously again.


"People like you always focus on the deviant acts of homosexuals. Do some homosexuals practice deviant acts? Sure they do, BUT SO DO A LOT OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!"


in all truth any person who practices a deviant act in sexual relations can not be called "straight"

The big difference here is the homosexual act is devient in itself, where the hetorsexual act is not.

Did you know that homosexual sodomy is quite legal and considered "normal", while hetrosexual sodomy is Illegal and considered devient.

"Well I'm sorry you find my quote offensive, but you should blame the people that are speaking out against homosexuality and other issues that are getting caught for the very same thing they are condemning"

"Don't blame me because I brought it up. Blame the hypocrite you made him or herself look like a fool."


You are condemning the beliefs because of his actions, you should condemn his actions not the belief. A Person can believe that murrder is wrong and through weakness kill someone. Should we condemn that mans beliefs as wrong because he killed someone? Surely we should say he was right murrder is wrong and his action was wrong.

What we should not do is say is that his beleif was wrong because he could not live upto that standard, therefore because his belief is wrong his act was right.

They did not make themselves look like fools, they showed themselves to be weak human beings.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 14th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Gu£st wrote:
Ah you poor misinformed soul.

"It kind of reminds of the olden days. When the church was against interracial marriage and a black person couldn't marry a white person and visa versa. "

That has NEVER EVER been the case, your thinking of interreligious marriage where the church stressed the benefits and importance of marriage between people of the same faith and the complications of interfaith marriages.

"What's the difference? Them not acting on it? That is the only difference I can see in this statement. So as long as thy don't fall in love with someone and show their feelings for them, they're ok with the church?"

Your statement is erronious and unthoughtout ...there is nothing wrong with loving people of the same Gender, I know I love a lot of people the same gender as me, one of my parents is the same gender as me and I dont have to have incest to show my feelings for them.

"Don't compare adultery with homosexuality. People choose to cheat on their spouses. People do not choose to be homosexuals."

False analogy!!!!

People dont choose who they are attracted too, they choose to have sex with them or not. A female who is attracted to another male apart from her husband does not choose to be attracted to the other male, but she chooses to have sex with him or not. A man who is attracted to other men does not choose to be attracted to other men but he chooses to have sex with them or not.

"Imagine if someone told you to surpress your feelings for someone you loved and don't ever act on those feelings or you would go to hell. ( a man made up place). How would you feel? "

I wouldnt be bothered if indeed it were a man made up place. If it were a real place then and I only think it man made then i would be ingnrant of the trouble I was in. Finally if it were a real place and I believed it were I would be thankful to those who told me.

"What kind of life is it to have to surpress your feelings all your life?"

When it benefits mankind and perhaps your eternal happiness then its a galant life.

"How happy can a person who is chained to the morals of a church ( with years of hypocricy in it's history mind you) be for the rest of their lives?"

If we are made by God and destined to work for God how can we be happy doing anything else?

How happy are you, do you even understand happiness, have you ever been truely happy?

"When you condemn homosexuality, you are essentially condemning that person, because you are condemning something that they didn't choose to be."


A person is not homosexuality that is ludicris!!!

A person may be homosexual but he is certainly not homosexuality.

We condemn the act of homosexuality not the homosexual.

"So would you say that interracial marriage is wrong? The religious people before you back then did. So do you think that was wrong or right? "

Unless your talking about one or two of the protestant faiths that I do not know about, your mistaking.

"By the way, I'm white and my wife is Japanese. So I take great offense to this crap that was spouted off in the name of God. "

You can rest assured that the catholic Church has always believed that interacial marriage was a Good thing for obvious reasons.... it is one of the reasons we are hated by the Ku Klux Klan.... perhaps thats the religion your thinking about.... they still believe that way.

"To say that homosexuals are more apt to commit sexual abuse is wrong. There is a vast majority more of straight people commiting sexual abuse than homosexuals. "

your unclear... are you saying

1 the vast majority of pedophiles are straight?

Or

2 are you saying the vast majority of straight people are pedophiles?

If it is number one, then I simply say you can hardly call pedophillia "straight"

If it is number two, I think I would never take your point of view seriously again.


"People like you always focus on the deviant acts of homosexuals. Do some homosexuals practice deviant acts? Sure they do, BUT SO DO A LOT OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!"


in all truth any person who practices a deviant act in sexual relations can not be called "straight"

The big difference here is the homosexual act is devient in itself, where the hetorsexual act is not.

Did you know that homosexual sodomy is quite legal and considered "normal", while hetrosexual sodomy is Illegal and considered devient.

"Well I'm sorry you find my quote offensive, but you should blame the people that are speaking out against homosexuality and other issues that are getting caught for the very same thing they are condemning"

"Don't blame me because I brought it up. Blame the hypocrite you made him or herself look like a fool."


You are condemning the beliefs because of his actions, you should condemn his actions not the belief. A Person can believe that murrder is wrong and through weakness kill someone. Should we condemn that mans beliefs as wrong because he killed someone? Surely we should say he was right murrder is wrong and his action was wrong.

What we should not do is say is that his beleif was wrong because he could not live upto that standard, therefore because his belief is wrong his act was right.

They did not make themselves look like fools, they showed themselves to be weak human beings.


Guest, you are welcome to your views, but please refrain from calling people who do not believe your point of view "fools" it is insulting.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Tags: woman
Quick Reply