but other holy books says so



this may seem a good point for those who are religious and most homosexuals are not.

Can you specify these other Holy books?

That's because they never did....But that's besides the point.
Because they don't believe that. Since homosexuality seems to defy the very purpose of their being male and female beings, it would be hard to say that God designed us to be gay.
You mean other than the fact that they actually are opposed to it? I wasn't making an argument for or against homosexuality. I was stating how homosexuality can be looked down upon from the church.....You aren't making any sense.

I assume you are referring to approving of Slavery.

Seems slavery is fine.


That is not a reason, let alone a logical one.
That's the equivalent of:
"Why is the sky blue?"
"Because it is blue."
Come back with a logical reason why they oppose it in this day and age.

let's see Quran for example



you said " use our intelligence to make decisions in good conscience" the you referred that it means "Meaning if the decision is morally wrong (not many religions find homosexuality a good thing) then don't do it" and that is what I find not acknowledging.

1. Not acknowledging what? That sentence doesn't even make sense....

2. The big part you're missing, is the "Since you're still looking at this from a religious standpoint".....Again, I'm talking about the Church's disapproval.

then I assume your talking about Christian people which not all the world is, so when you said from a "religious point "you should have mentioned what religion that is/was.

Poeple say that being gay or a lesbian is a sin, but I don't beleive that. I think that people should be able to decide who they want to spend their life with regardless of gender. I'm not a lesbian, but I still feel people should have a choice. I'm only 12 so I don't have to worry about that stuff yet.

I didn't just mean Christian, I meant a number of religions. Hence why I said "(not many religions)".

how many other religions goes to the church? probably few that is why your post is not very branched.

you said that we would have to use our intelligence to make decisions, then said if it was morally wrong...then don't do it! but others users have proved it to be harmless and the result of using our intelligence.

I meant that as in institutionalized/organized religion. I really don't think my post was very hard to understand.....Branched? Are you drunk? Just fo an FYI many religions go to some sort of location to worship their deities, which would be their equivalent of the Christian church. Even the ancient Greeks built temples to various gods. You aren't reading my post. I'm going to help you out so that you can understand.Ok let me put it in a new way so that you can finally grasp it. We would be required BY OUR INSTITUTIONALIZED/ORGANIZED RELIGION to use our decisions in good conscience. After that I said this. Notice that I don't go say homosexuality is wrong despite my belief otherwise. I say that religions expect us to use our intelligence and free will to do good. If they deem an action to be otherwise, then the action will be looked down upon. I then said that not many religions approve of homosexuality. Notice that the post has no relevance to my standpoint on homosexuality...It's simply a response to the idea of being "built" with the intelligence for sexual "progression" from the perspective of religion.....Is that branched enough?

WRONG.

The founding fathers where DEISTS and also believed in the seperation of church and state. They migrated to get away from religion you know?

since all of you are gay know about gay people then I have a an answer that I seek...does being gay or gay people can never be seduced by female humans?

BAN PLZ!


(I'll assume you mean "Can a gay guy be seduced by a woman?")
It's possible, like a strait guy can be seduced by a Gay guy. Alcohol is usually involved in these situations. Anyone can be seduced by anyone, it all depends on the individual.
Also, I like how you specified "human female." Were you worried we would think you mean horses or something?

Why do people assume morality is somehow inherently attatched to religion? You can have a set of morals without having a religion tell you to follow them.

For that matter, there are plenty of atheists who deem homosexuality to be wrong and unnatural. There are plenty of religious people who take homosexuality just fine.

Demon x- I still can't make any sense of your posts.

I'll make it easier ahem :
can a gay guy get seduced by a girl or women: is it possible?

Yes, you retard! I just said so!

just plain funny!


what does that suppose to mean Pops!
and if your saying that, then Toby-chan was the one to reply and he did so after you did your reply, so maybe he didn't see that? so I posted it again! see this was not pointless!.

Popogeejo, I think I love you.

There is a difference between a book saying something, and an institution saying something......If everyone unanimously agreed with the bible, we wouldn't have as many sects of Christianity as we do today would we? I don't want scripture. I want quotes from the Pope approving of slavery. Or at the very least, some historical evidence of the Catholic Church approving of slavery. Not quite. You stated that they have no logical reason to oppose of homosexuality, as if it were something they pulled out of nowhere during a certain time period. That's not the case. The church is opposed to homosexuality in the same way it is opposed to murder. They consider it a sin, and therefore are against it. They don't have to re-examine their beliefs simply because homosexuality is becoming more mainstream.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

That good enough for you?


You still have not given a logical reason why they still oppose homosexuality in this day and age. Maybe they had a good reason for opposing it before but now they have no logical reason.


Why not? They did that with slavery.

Much better. There are a couple of things to notice here. Prior to the Catholic reformation, there were a hell of a lot of things wrong with the Church. There were popes having orgies in the Vatican. I fully realize that at times there is going to be a pope that says or does something blatantly wrong just as any elected official will. However, statements, and actions depicted in the link you gave are representative of the beliefs of the religion. I brought up the orgies in the Vatican. Would you make the claim that since a particular pope did this, that the religion believed it to be ok? What logical reason do they have to change it? Do you honestly expect a religion to alter it's doctrines just to conform to society's trends?

Not necessarily, while the actions of one Pope doesn't mean the religion as a whole condones the act the fact that several Pops bought slaves, many others said nothing on the issue and many Catholics traded slaves mounts up to show that the Church did condone, and actively participate in slavery.



They have members within the Church asking for it, many of their members want this change.
While they don't have to change this they should at least hold an open debate among it's congregation to decide what they should do.


Yes, when that's what members of their own Church want.

Personally, I'd rather side with a divine institution than a human one on this one, and the Catholic Church has shown time and time again to be more of the later than the former. As far as slavery is considered, the Bible does not condone it so much as it sets boundaries and codes of conduct about slavery as a pre-existing practice (service for six years, freed on the seventh, etc.). If you examine the parts that talk about slavery, they seem to apply more to servitude in general than slavery in specific. There are certain practices within the Old Testament time period that the Bible says "This isn't a good idea, but if you must, at least do so in this manner." For example, God seems to hit the nail rather hard on the head that the people follow him in place of an Earthy king, but this doesn't stop him from giving off a perscription for a good king should they want one anyway (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).

MY RELIGION SAYS THAT GAYS R BAD

SO GAYS R BAD K


/no

Love is love. On a psychological scale, nothing whatsoever is stopping a (wo)man and a (wo)man from falling in love, so we should let it go.

And I think marriage is overrated. It's such a religious thing; It shouldn't mean too much to the rest of us (Perhaps this will prove me to be a hypocrite, but my girlfriend is Christian and I could pretend to be one for a few days so as to have a huge party.).

Anyway, a person is a person and yeah. D:

The forum mates doesn't take lazyness lightly...
IMO for In My Opinion is okay...but substitute "R" for are and "K" for okay is deem "illegal here" [OK is fine..I think]

Moreover, the forum have rules against inappropriate using of large Alphabetical letters like:

----
Back to topic,

Gay and Lesbian are just "new" cultures... Needs time to be accepted... They did no harm, except the "things they do when on bed"... Except that, there is nothing wrong... A movie even says Alexander The Great is gay.... but I din't know how true is it....

White men are more open minded than us, the Asians...In fact Asian are the most narrow minded people on earth!!! For us, French kissing in front of the 88 story high twin tower is a taboo and risk to be put behind the bars for a year...but in many place such as California and Hamburg, couples Fench kissing everywhere... LOL

French kisses aside~
I dealt with numerous customers whom are Gay... They are basically a normal human being..albeit with "softer" attitude and a little sensitive and emphasize in perfection...For them, when they know they are gay, they will not "spread" it among people, the public... and of course they will not take you to a unscheduled place and attempt sodomy...

So, IMO, The Dan, you should say " Gays that attempt sodomy on me are bad" instead of "Gays are bad" XDXD


And by the way, I am normal... I am not gay... ^.^

Acronyms are fine and the All caps was used for humour and in moderation so it's okay as well.

Don't worry, if any of you step out of place I, or the mods, will be on top of it. >=)

Carry on.

To redeem myself, there was an entire 90% of a post that you did not read, Sir Kenji, Right under your nose. ;~;

In fact, I'll post it again.




So yes.

Gays are okay. b^_^d

OOh...I am not so honoured to receive the title "Sir" and...

under my nose there is a pimple... XDXDXD

Great to know that I am not posting with narrow minded people...

@ Kenji - actually, homosexuals within society have been around for a very long time... So yeah, they're more "main-stream," ie, they're more open about their sexuality, which I think is great, and I agree, it will take lots of time...

I don't know if I've discussed this here before or not, but whatever... you don't have to agree, I'm stating what I find to be more or less true...

Being a homosexual basically means that you find yourself more emotionally attached to others of your same sex, correct? For example, a guy loves other guys more so than women... right?

Now consider this: you have to be able to develop some sort of emotional attachment to others in order to, at the very least, have friends, correct? You have to love someone enough for you to want them to be your friend (and before you all spaz out, "love" doesn't necessarily have one definition). So, it's perfectly reasonable to say that in order for a guy to have other guy friends (and for a woman to have other female friends), we have to "love" the same sex to some degree - am I right?

So, I think of homosexuality in this way: you are pre-disposed/more emotionally open/etc. to the same sex than the "average" person...

Make sense to everyone? You can all feel free to argue totally and completely against me with me until you're blue in the face, but be forewarned, if you type like this: "OMG U ARE SO WRONG! OMG GAY IZ BAD!" then I will completely ignore you... ok? Also, I'd like it if any of you choosing to argue against me were to come up with actual support for your telling me I'm wrong - something that isn't from the bible, por favor - becuase I will laugh at you. I'm a Christian, but I will laugh my fat @$$ off at you... After all, it's bad to touch the skin of a pic, but everyone in America seems to be totally obsessed with football... We could go on for hours...

One more thing: Just don't even bother saying that you "hate" homosexuals - has any gay person ever beat you up? Doubt it. If anything, it's the other way around. Their marrying isn't hurting you or taking away your rights, is it? Then QUIT COMPLAINING!!! America is a free country that allows for any religion - to say that our country's marriage laws should follow the bible is tearing apart everything that the American Revolution was based on... (which wasn't flimsy enough to begin with).

Ok, I'm done now.

The United States of America was founded under The Bible.

...Maybe in Bizarro World...

Indeed. A number of the founding fathers were not Christian, IIRC. The country was not founded on religion.

In colonial times anyways, when the USA was new. If not so, why would there be a "One nation, under god"?

@The New Fullmetal Alchemist ...wooh...stop..beep..There is a #@%kin huge misunderstanding here...

I posted this...


I dint stat that i hate gays...

and futhermore... a few question to ask

-editted-

@ Void - many *aspects* of America's structure were founded based on the *influence* of the bible... Big difference...

@ Kenji - Hm? I'm sorry, I thought I was agreeing with you... I'll have to go back and look... that big blow-up wasn't directed at you! Sorry if you thought that! I'll go back and check what my post to you was...

I'll take "Nope" for 100 please, Alex.

At least, last I heard. >.>

Aargh...I've made things off topic.

@The New Full Metal Alchemist: It is of my opinion that most of the people who're obsessed with football and picking on 'those little fags' do not have the IQ necessary to find this web page, let alone the attention span to watch or read the anime/manga this site is based upon.

So you don't have to worry about being flamed for your beliefs here. Anyway, the more open-minded of us will back you up if you are. <3~

On that note, I disagree with you. XD


I do agree that it is necessary to love someone to befriend them, but I believe in love as more of a loose -and yet more of a solid - term. Of the several kinds of love, there is the love that you would throw your body in front of a bullet for (to which the number of things that any one given person would do that for will vary (personally, since I do not value my own life terribly and I'd feel terrible if I had the chance and ignored it, I'd do it for any human) ), and there is the stronger love for which you love one person and you value them above all else.

First I'd like to note that while that sentence went all over the place, it is grammatically fine. Second I'd like to note that I'm a hopeless romantic when it comes to this, and I do believe that I am actually in the second kind of love, the love that is described in Marriage and such.

Now, it is of my belief that the gender of the person that you fall in 'Love' (the second kind) with that determines whether you are straight or gay. By that theory, yes, everyone is in fact bisexual from birth, until they fall in love.

This ideal is the product of hours and hours of meditation, self-reflection and peer-to-peer discussion, so if you anyone can manage to change my mind they win a cookie.

And saying 'I don't believe in that kind of love' isn't going to do that, either. D:



@Elric13: Where our country came from is so very irrelevant to this debate. We have a little something called SEPERATION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE nowadys, kiddo.

@ Kenji - Ah! I think I see how we got mixed up - I wasn't arguing with you, I was only going more into depth with a "new" culture thing... my point was that they're not really new, just more "out there"... sorry about that! Yeah, pretty much none of that other post was directed at you. I like you - you're cool!

Haha! It must be late, we're all having such problems with clarity!

@The Dan - I totally agree with everything you just said! And I did in my other post, as well - but I think I may have glossed over going into the "kinds of love" thing in my little 'fit of passion' there... I find I'm better able to explain my theory when I'm talking rather than typing, b/c another person's comments help to keep me focused. I believe that we are in total agreement when you get down to everything... I also appreciate the statement of support, and I think I now love you (first, not second! ) for your first statement about how many idiots there are in our country... sigh...

Yeah, somewhat.

It doesn't actually matter whether the country was founded on the Bible, really. Modern times =/= when the Bible was written, and as such it's various rules need not necessarily apply. Further more, seperation of church and state and freedom of religion mean that the Bible saying whatever is not a viable reason for a law to exist. Religion should not be used to limit the rights of others.

I'm, as I think I've said before, all for gay marriage.

EDIT: Dan got the church and state thing in before me.

Amen. *nods*


(if you didn't get the irony in that, well... yeah... I'm too nice to say it...)

I'm sorry, that's incorrect, but thanks for playing.

Beyond basic human rights "Endowed by their creator" and freedom of religion, the founding documents don't touch upon religion all that much, if at all. Yes, Judeo-Christian values shaped our culture, ethics, traditions, and laws, but that's different.

Similarly, the notion of "Separation of Church and State" was intended to keep the State out of the Church, but not necessarily the Church out of the State, and is actually not found in the founding documents to my knowledge, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson. Across the Ocean in Europe, the State was rather fond of dabbling religious affairs, which gave rise to a lot of persecution and religious wars.

And I apologize if this is now actually off-topic.

This is the human part of religion....While the religion itself does not condone the actions of the people, the religion is a belief and cannot stop the people from breaking its laws.....I say it again. The Religion does not condone slavery, despite some of its "followers" doing it anyway. By your logic, the Catholic Church condones sinning in general because everyone sins....The practices of the church don't allow that.(and shouldn't, there would be no further evidence needed to prove that a religion was false if a religion changed its doctrine on a whim.) The Church does not have the ability to change God's commands....Religion isn't a democracy, and I think you are missing that..... The only reason I wanted him to exclude the Bible was because of the fact that he specifically said the Catholic church.....hence why I wanted statements from the Catholic church and not the Bible.



I really don't understand why you're debating with me.....I said I don't agree with homosexuality, but don't care if they get married. But you cannot force a religion to change it's practices because of it. No religion HAS to allow gay marriage within their walls.

The Catholic church has changed it's doctrines though.
It's no longer fine to sell your daughter into Slavery, growing two different crops side by side is no longer punishable by death as is called for in the Bible, people can wear two different materials and Meat with Dairy isn't going to send you to hell.
The Catholics have pruned their Doctrines of the silly and pointless rules as have other faiths.
Other religions found ways to circumnavigate their own rules. The Torah said putting people to death was okay but the Rabbis made a system whereby it was impossible to lay that punishment on anyone.
There are plenty of reasons and ways the Catholics can rescind this Anti homosexual rule without making their faith look false.

I don´t care about the Bible or the religions n_ñ
(Wait wait!! Im catholic!! Im not like Edward XD)
I only know that we need to respect them, ´cause they are humans after all
Only with... different preferences
Actually I have two friends: One gay and one lesbian n_ñ
But I like them they are cool
And if they want to marry.... Good luck!!
Just we need to accept them as they are n_n
Or not?

The church did not change it's doctrine, it changed its behavior. Lemme post a quote


"Present-day Christians argue that Paul and Peter were not defending or condoning slavery, but simply they recognized it as a fact of life in the Roman Empire. Paul was not a social reformer, but an apostle who was more concerned with the spiritual condition of men and women than he was with their physical circumstances. For this reason Paul, as well as other New Testament writers, instructs his readers on how to be on good terms with God and man no matter what situation they may be in. To have successfully challenged the Roman institution of slavery would have been irrational because it might have deprived the early Christian church of two important sources of converts: slaves and their masters. Slaves would no longer have felt the need for spiritual over real salvation and their masters would have been too resentful to listen to the Christian message and perceive its disempowering effect on their slaves." Quite frankly, the average human being is far more educated now, than in any age before it. So I don't find it surprising that a corrupt Pope can convince his congregation that slavery is a good thing, because until the printing press, who could argue with him? Yes there are biblical quotes that seem to tolerate or support slavery but there are quotes that seem say to the exact opposite.

I understand how certain things do change in religious practice, but it's almost(not taking the almost out) never a change to laid down doctrine, but a change in interpretation.....In this case, there's not much to interpret. If God designed us, then he obviously didn't intend for us to reproduce with the same sex....Since in most Christian teachings, the issue of sex and marriage are SACRED things, a positive interpretation of homosexuality cannot be drawn

If God designed us, who can say he didn't intend for humans to be homosexuals? Maybe God put that in there as a natural population check. It really is quite presumtuous to imply that you know exactly what God meant to do, because with our superior human reasoning and logic we see all. The fact is that if God did create us and He made some of us homosexuals, he might have had a reason for that. Maybe it's just the homophobia of the people who wrote the Tenach and the New Testament which is responsible for the bible's anti-homosexual laws.

Just a bit of random rambling that won't mean anything to any athiests out there. Just another two cents from me.

I feel it is unlikely that God HAS natural population checks. Who WANTS to kill their children? And I feel that the reproductive parts of a male and female being compatible seems to be a pretty big clue of what God intended.... No one is born gay and therefore I don't think God had some genius to idea to keep the population in check by making some people attracted to the same sex.

Especially since God can't be that smart a designer, anyway. The human knee is an absolutely awful design, for example.