|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 20, 2004 16:33:23 GMT -5
Hmmm.... was reading Time today and came across a few interesting quotes:
- Senator Rick Santorum
- Senator Wane Allard
Of course, a master plan to destory an institution that gay couples merely want to join...
- James Dobson, a leading religous-right supporter of Bush
- Gary Bauer, head of the Campaign for Working Families
I don't think I really need to comment on those quotes - they pretty much make fun of themselves.
Really, I thought this thread was dead, so I don't really think I want to participate in this debate again (for what would be the millionth-and-one time for me). Just thought I'd post a few interesting quotes I found just today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2004 11:14:21 GMT -5
I'm afraid their's no real switching of shoes in this matter. While we could be diplomatic and envision homosexuality being the 'norm' it won't really get any votes of sympathy, especialy from religious people. Through their eyes homosexuality will never be simpathized or supported, otherwise it would go completely against the doctrine. God created man, and then God created women. Both meant for eachother; not man and man or women and women.
|
|
|
|
Post by william on Jul 22, 2004 13:22:28 GMT -5
I'm afraid their's no real switching of shoes in this matter. While we could be diplomatic and envision homosexuality being the 'norm' it won't really get any votes of sympathy, especialy from religious people. Through their eyes homosexuality will never be simpathized or supported, otherwise it would go completely against the doctrine. God created man, and then God created women. Both meant for eachother; not man and man or women and women. Here's a question for you: scientists now believe that people are born gay. If God disagrees so strongly with homosexuality, why create people gay? |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 22, 2004 16:08:58 GMT -5
I disagree with both the theories of choosing to be gay, or being born that way. I think you grow up that way. Naturally, if you're a boy and as a child hang out with girls a lot, you don't grow up very... manly. OK, bad example. But I mean, depending on who you live with, hang out around, or watch... you know. Everything that influences your life changes your perception.
And, let me ask you this. Remember way, way back, in like grade 2, all the girls would stick together, and all the guys would stick together, and we'd all be like EWW!! guys are so gross and mean and nasty... and we'd make fun of any girls that liked to hang out with the guys? Now. Which group is gay?
|
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 22, 2004 16:28:18 GMT -5
I'm afraid their's no real switching of shoes in this matter. While we could be diplomatic and envision homosexuality being the 'norm' it won't really get any votes of sympathy, especialy from religious people. Through their eyes homosexuality will never be simpathized or supported, otherwise it would go completely against the doctrine. God created man, and then God created women. Both meant for eachother; not man and man or women and women. I'm sure someone once thought that about the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun (I've forgotten the name of it). Of course, science has proven that belief false. Now, that is the "norm". As much as you may not want to believe it, the world changes - and that includes religion. I have full faith that someday, homosexuality will be considered as normal as anything else. My proof: history. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Jul 22, 2004 16:45:18 GMT -5
I'm sure someone once thought that about the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun (I've forgotten the name of it). Of course, science has proven that belief false. Now, that is the "norm". As much as you may not want to believe it, the world changes - and that includes religion. I have full faith that someday, homosexuality will be considered as normal as anything else. My proof: history. It was heliocentrism, or something similar. In fact, in Roman times, homosexuality (well, for men, at least) was considered perfectly normal and natural. They accepted it as part of their society. Like Buddy, I believe it will gradually be accepted as older generations die out and as people become more open. A lot of my friends are kind of squirmy with it, but do think they should be allowed to marry, quite strongly. I'm kind of hoping Britain gets more into this, but it hasn't really been debated here. I disagree with both the theories of choosing to be gay, or being born that way. I think you grow up that way. Naturally, if you're a boy and as a child hang out with girls a lot, you don't grow up very... manly. OK, bad example. But I mean, depending on who you live with, hang out around, or watch... you know. Everything that influences your life changes your perception. And, let me ask you this. Remember way, way back, in like grade 2, all the girls would stick together, and all the guys would stick together, and we'd all be like EWW!! guys are so gross and mean and nasty... and we'd make fun of any girls that liked to hang out with the guys? Now. Which group is gay? Neither is. I used to hang out with girls the whole time. Some people used to chase boys the whole time. Neither are gay. I think science has done studies proving that there is a "gay" gene and it has to do with the amount of testerone you get in the womb as well, I think. I don't really believe in nuture over nature  Very, very few boys and girls hang out with each other when they're young, except maybe to play games or something. And then, once they get older, they all try to hang out with each other  On this subject, a guy in the paper I read this morning turned the issue on its head and argued eloquently against heterosexual relationships. And he exploited all the stereotypes we have of gay people, like that the men have to be girly and the women butch. It's possible to be gay and neither ie a girl not picking up masculine traits, but hanging solely around with girls and still being gay. And your theory doesn't fit in bisexual people either |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2004 18:13:19 GMT -5
Why does God create gay people? Same question as why are serial killers born? Murderers and psychotics aren't born they're made, and that's the same what I think for gay people. God has endowed us with the gift of free will and choice, and he has no control over our decisions. Terrorists aren't born, they're made, made through influences that lead them to believe that blowing themselves up and killing innocents, will serve the greater good. And through that act, assuring their entrance to paradise. And frankly I don't take heed what scientists are going to say, science and religion will forever contradict, its an incessant paradox. If our bible says god made the world, science will say it was the big bang, if our bible says God made us from dust, science will say we evolved from apes. And yet again I emphasize, we have free will to believe what we want, you prefer science, and I prefer the bible and its laws and commandments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2004 18:16:48 GMT -5
By the way secret ninja, you should check your Roman history a bit more. Homosexuality was one of many other reasons for the decadence of the Empire -just figured i'd point that out-
|
|
|
|
Post by My email doesn't work anymore on Jul 22, 2004 18:20:10 GMT -5
By the way secret ninja, you should check your Roman history a bit more. Homosexuality was one of many other reasons for the decadence of the Empire -just figured i'd point that out- Actually Alexander the Great happened to be one too...even though he had many other female lovers...so I guess that doesn't count... |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 22, 2004 18:27:20 GMT -5
Why does God create gay people? Same question as why are serial killers born? Murderers and psychotics aren't born they're made, and that's the same what I think for gay people. God has endowed us with the gift of free will and choice, and he has no control over our decisions. Terrorists aren't born, they're made, made through influences that lead them to believe that blowing themselves up and killing innocents, will serve the greater good. And through that act, assuring their entrance to paradise. And frankly I don't take heed what scientists are going to say, science and religion will forever contradict, its an incessant paradox. If our bible says god made the world, science will say it was the big bang, if our bible says God made us from dust, science will say we evolved from apes. And yet again I emphasize, we have free will to believe what we want, you prefer science, and I prefer the bible and its laws and commandments. Actually, Science and the Bible never conflict. The only thing that does conflict with it is with certain theories, such as the Theory of Evolution. Remember, when God created the universe, he put into place laws of physics and so forth. It's not like those were "universal" before the universe.  And before someone *coughBuddycough* even thinks about saying "Sure, Evolution may be an unproven theory, but so is the Theory of Relativity..." I will point something out. Relativity appears to work, yes. Demonstrated by the creation of the atom bomb. But one of the lynchpins of the theory of Relativity is nothing can ever move faster than light, not even information. Enter Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Quantum theory disagrees with Relativity on several points. One of which, being the light speed limit. Yet it has been shown that two molecules and bind themselves to each other and become 'connected', though not physically. When one molecule is pushed downward, no matter where the other molecule is, it'll go upwards at the exact same time. That means that the information travels faster than light. It has been tested and worked several, several times. This, itself, appears to work just as well as Relativity does. Yet the two theories contradict. At that point, how can one be proven as a universal law, if the other contradicts? Has scientists everywhere baffled. They're hoping to tie the two theories together somehow. So the argument regarding Relativity not being a law yet, just as Evolution isn't (which by the way, has far less evidence [zero] supporting it than Relativity), is null-and-void. Whew. I said a lot, but said absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. n.n |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jul 22, 2004 18:39:33 GMT -5
And before someone *coughBuddycough* even thinks about saying... I wasn't going to say anything... I don't argue Evolution. Personally, I think the idea makes sense, but then, we'll never know wether or not it's true. If there was ever a "pointless" debate, the one of Evolution v. Creationism is it. Anyways, I can neither argue nor acknowledge your points - I know zip on astrophysics. That said, I'd like whoever it was to explain how homosexuality brought down the Roman empire. I don't know much about it, but I'm pretty sure it's not as cut-and-dry as they put it. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 22, 2004 18:48:28 GMT -5
*twiddles thumbs* There is no scientific evidence for this "gay gene", you know. That is something even advocates have admited. It's yet to be found. Probably because it doesn't exist. After all, what gene would be produced like that, via evolution? Evolution only puts forth genes beneficial to the strengthening and preservation of a race. And God sure wouldn't create a gay gene then say homosexuality is wrong, no would He? Let me pose a question to you...if gay/bisexual is all based on one's mindset, and not choice...then what's with pornstars? Especially the female ones. They seem to go both ways rather easily. To them it's a matter of choice, and not genetics. Then there's the people out there that think they're gay based on the standards set in society, pressure from around them, and so forth. And finally there's who I'd like to call the "true-gays" (I divide gays into two types, "True-gays" and "Think-they're-Gay, talked about above), those who say it's who they are and they have no choice. Just about 100% of them have had bad experiences during their childhood putting tremendous mental stress and blocking in their head. This leads to homosexuality. A mental disorder, not a genetic defect. How can I say this? Simple. I have family members who're gay. Friends who're gay. That experience I speak of? Exists in their life. Rosie O'Donnel, famous person who's gay...had a number of bad experiences in childhood. Then there's those I talk with in the ministry who counsel those who're gay...that same type of experience is there. And it used to be treated as such for the longest time. Until people decided they didn't like that idea. That it was a mental defect wasn't politically correct and so forth. So that's how we've come to the current agenda on of homosexuality today. None of you probably believe me, which I don't really care if you do or not. I'm just saying it how it is. One final question...take a look at those who're "Bisexual". How many of them are girls? A good majority, correct? I can probably guess why, no problem. Girls have this ability to say another girl is attractive, hot, pretty, so forth. Guys, for the most part, lack that ability. But in society today, pretty much you're told if you find someone of the same gender attractive, you're gay/bisexual and there's nothing you can do about it. So that's why a lot of the girls growing up today begin doing that. That's my huge opinion on that part right there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2004 18:50:36 GMT -5
So the argument regarding Relativity not being a law yet, just as Evolution isn't (which by the way, has far less evidence [zero] supporting it than Relativity), is null-and-void. Whew. I said a lot, but said absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. n.n Actually, Evolution has a lot of evidence backing it up. Theories are based on hypotheses which have been proven correct, and some that have not. So if Evolution is a Theory, it obviously has some evidence backing it up, just not all (more than Creation, which truly has no evidence backing it up). For example, one part of Evolution is that characteristics of organisms change to adapt to a different environment through natural selection: those equestrians without stripes who didn't move away from the lions were eaten. Those who moved away survived and bred stripeless equestrians. Those who had stripes and stayed were able to hide in the tall grass, and bred only striped equestrians, which gave us Zebras. You see how that works? Eventually, those changes make it so the two can't breed successfully, and that makes them different species. What's it called when a new species is formed? Evolution. See? It's proven that evolution works, but they can't prove that it's what created humans, which is the big debate. Anyways, to stay on topic, I don't think homosexuality is biologically correct. I don't dislike homosexuals, and I really don't care if they're married or not because I don't believe it will affect me. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread because I've said everything I wanted to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 22, 2004 18:52:40 GMT -5
I wasn't going to say anything... I don't argue Evolution. Personally, I think the idea makes sense, but then, we'll never know wether or not it's true. If there was ever a "pointless" debate, the one of Evolution v. Creationism is it. Anyways, I can neither argue nor acknowledge your points - I know zip on astrophysics. That said, I'd like whoever it was to explain how homosexuality brought down the Roman empire. I don't know much about it, but I'm pretty sure it's not as cut-and-dry as they put it. Hehe. Well, that's one of your tenets in the arguments where that's brought up. You mention tectonic plates (which can't be proven due to the nature of it), and relativity as still theories. I wanted to shut that down and quick.  Also, I can explain, just as well. What causes the stagnation and degradation of every single culture in the world and throughout history is their amorist lifestyle...that is without morals. Roman and greek citizens just about lived from one orgy to the next. It was a huge sexual free-for-all (there's that term again.) and so forth. I'll see if I can't find something tugging on my memory right now. "Signs of a dying culture/civilization" |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 22, 2004 18:57:48 GMT -5
Actually, Evolution has a lot of evidence backing it up. Theories are based on hypotheses which have been proven correct, and some that have not. So if Evolution is a Theory, it obviously has some evidence backing it up, just not all (more than Creation, which truly has no evidence backing it up). For example, one part of Evolution is that characteristics of organisms change to adapt to a different environment through natural selection: those equestrians without stripes who didn't move away from the lions were eaten. Those who moved away survived and bred stripeless equestrians. Those who had stripes and stayed were able to hide in the tall grass, and bred only striped equestrians, which gave us Zebras. You see how that works? Eventually, those changes make it so the two can't breed successfully, and that makes them different species. What's it called when a new species is formed? Evolution. See? It's proven that evolution works, but they can't prove that it's what created humans, which is the big debate. Anyways, to stay on topic, I don't think homosexuality is biologically correct. I don't dislike homosexuals, and I really don't care if they're married or not because I don't believe it will affect me. What you describe there is known as "Survival of the Fittest." Which I never denied. It happens. But prove to me such equestarians without stripes ever existed in Africa. Show me these missing links. I'm not talking jig-sawed bone pieces and fragments found miles and miles apart from each other in the african desert (that is a huge discredit to evolution right there). So you can't say evolution itself has any proven-correctly hypotheses. Survival of the Fittest, in this case, can't be considered evolution, because there is so much in evolution itself that basically personifies nature and genes. Saying it creates genes for help and so forth. See what I'm saying? |
|
