Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[chibi-master]

Okay, E.D. stated in a different thread that being gay or lesbian was wrong. And rather than be an a** and spam up The 13th Man's thread with that arguement, I decided to start this thread.

Okay, I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with a person being bi, les or gay. People can love whomever they wish. But I understand that some people dissagree. I don't understand why, though. And since I know someone will bring this up, YES, I KNOW that the bible says being bi, lesbian or gay is wrong. My rebutle is, DO YOUR OWN D*** THINKING AND STOP LETTING THE BIBLE DO IT FOR YOU!!!

Anyway, your opinion please? And by the way, please be civil, guys. I don't need a bunch of "EEEW!!! DATS SO MESSED UP!!! WTF?!?!", okay?

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Indigo"]crap. you read it. i'm ready for a debate! bring it on! bring it on!

oh, yeah, back on topic. before i get into the really juicy part, chibi, you said that you say that people should do their own thing and stop letting the Bible rule their lives, right? Okay, I accept that. but, what about our set of rules for the U.S.? should we just forget that set of rules, too?[/COLOR]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"] but, what about our set of rules for the U.S.? should we just forget that set of rules, too?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

The laws about gays and lesbians not being able to marry in certain states? Those laws are small-minded and I wish they weren't there. So, yes, we should forget about, those, but we can't.:animecry:

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Indigo"]no, not those laws, i'm talking about [I]all [/I]the laws, just like the Bible has. and sure, we can go against those, it's no different than the Bible's and we [I]are[/I] going against those.[/COLOR]

[Deus Dog]

The Bible does not have laws as such as far as I'm aware. The part of the Bible as far as I'm aware that states homomsexuality is wrong is Leviticus which is present in the Torah (Five books of Moses or the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). The Torah is 'guidance', not laws. This should not be disputed as Christianity evolved from Judaism - therefore, the Bible is not law and would probably be best used as guidance.

I find there is nothing wrong with any kind of homosexuality. The normal argument against it is religion, in which the 'correct path' was laid out thousands of years ago when being gay (at least in many monotheistic religions rather than among the pagans) was a major 'no'. Many people ignore parts of the Bible but seem rooted in the few statements against homosexuality - why? I don't know. It just seems to have little place in society.

There is an argument I heard of that many monotheistic religions were very much against pagans, especially because the main super powers in the ancient world were pagan empires, and that there are a few passages that themselves are simply an attack against paganism (rightly so some would state). Whether or not this is true is beyond my knowledge and I just thought it was worth the mention because it was interesting.

[Lunar]

[quote name='Deus Dog']The Bible does not have laws as such as far as I'm aware. The part of the Bible as far as I'm aware that states homomsexuality is wrong is Leviticus which is present in the Torah (Five books of Moses or the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). The Torah is 'guidance', not laws. [B]This should not be disputed as Christianity evolved from Judaism - therefore, the Bible is not law and would probably be best used as guidance.[/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]Ten Commandments=[B]laws[/B]. Well, only if you want to go to heaven, but lets not get into that, shall we?:animeswea[/COLOR]

[Deus Dog]

The 'Ten Commandments' are present in Judaism, only they have 613 (?) mitzvots, but still the same commandments within them. Again, the Commandments came from Judaism (they were there first) and appeared in the Torah - first. The Torah is guidance. What Christianity took from 'guidance' became law which seems like losing the original meaning.

And, also note, the Torah is also referred to as 'the Law' but is misleading as there is no punishment (except divine) for the breaking of the Laws and it is also stated over and over that it is guidance. Therefore it can also be the same for Christianity - what is referred to as 'Laws' is merely an expression and could very well be misleading.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer][COLOR="Indigo"]Ten Commandments=[B]laws[/B']. Well, only if you want to go to heaven, but lets not get into that, shall we?:animeswea[/COLOR][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Not any longer, hun. Or haven't you read the New Testament?

Point of order: rules of sexual conduct are a Christian thing, so why should non-Christians worry about it? If you ain't one, it really doesn't matter. Do as you will.[/FONT]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Point of order: rules of sexual conduct are a Christian thing, so why should non-Christians worry about it? If you ain't one, it really doesn't matter. Do as you will.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Yeah, too bad for those of us who ARE Christians.

[Lunar]

[quote name='Deus Dog']The 'Ten Commandments' are present in Judaism, only they have 613 (?) mitzvots, but still the same commandments within them. Again, the Commandments came from Judaism (they were there first) and appeared in the Torah - first. The Torah is guidance. What Christianity took from 'guidance' became law which seems like losing the original meaning.
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]What's a mitzvot? Wasn't Christianity branched from Judaism?(don't kill me if i"m wrong, I'm more interested in medical stuff). When you say "guidance" isn't that like leading you to a good place in their standards? I shouldn't have said law(big mistake) perhaps the Ten Commandments are a guidance, but should really be taken as a law, but they don't have to be taken as a law, but are good to follow so they lead you to a right place? Excuse my repeatitive-ness. Allamorph, please don't call me "hun" i'd rather be called "squirt" rather than "hun" any day. Back onto topic. I've read the whole Bible, and I see your point in saying "why should non-Christians care?" I agree with chibi, too bad for us who [I]are[/I] Christians. as you should know, Christians believe that if you don't give your life over to God, you'll go to Hell. Am I wrong? So, we think non-Christians should care.[/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][Center]]The Bible contains [B]six[/B] admonishments to homosexuals and [B]three hundred sixty-two[/B] admonishments to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.- Lynn Larner[/center]

I just figured I'd throw that quote out here for fun because that's just how I am.

I'm not good at debating with the Bible, the Bible is layered with meanings and I don't believe it was meant to be taken compeletly literally because if that were the case we wouldn't have clothing from mixed blends and women would still have to stay inside during their menstral cycle. Also those lines used to condemn homosexuality are usually hidden way back in Leviticus while the story about love is up in Corinthians. Come to think about it the Bible has a lot more to say about love than it does to say about not loving someone. I'm a good Catholic, but not too keen on some of my religion's beliefs-and sometimes not even the saints, but still I think St. John the Apostle said it best: He who says that he loves God but hates his brother is a liar. For how can he love God who he has not seen when he hates his brother who he has seen?

That said, I don't see why everyone is so up in arms over homosexuality. Is anyone trying to convert you to becoming a homosexual? Is this the reason our economy is in a recession and headed straight to a depression? (Okay fine if you ask some insanity driven Bible Thumper he or she may say yes) Did Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DiRossi's marriage damage your health in anyway? Is your life directly affected in a negative way by anyone being gay? Chances are not bloody likely.

I do agree that the government should not be allowed to make laws concerning who can marry who based on sexual preference. It's an unjust law and should be repealed in all fifty states not just Vermont and California. It's as bad as the laws in the South that used to dictate that races could not inter marry. And I do agree that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. It's just something that happens like being straight.

Yeah for now that's really all I have to say on the subject. Sorry it's not all that good[/color]

[Lunar]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff][Center]]The Bible contains [B]six[/B] admonishments to homosexuals and [B]three hundred sixty-two[/B] admonishments to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.- Lynn Larner[/center]
[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]Whoa, there. Hold up. Never said I didn't like homosexuals, I have a friend who's bi, and a very cool person. I just don't agree with their way of life is all.:catgirl:[/COLOR]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]Yeah for now that's really all I have to say on the subject. Sorry it's not all that good[/color][/QUOTE]

No, no! That was great! Actually, you basically summed up all my feelings in that one post! Good job, you!:o

[Guest Crimson Spider]

You know, I find it rather funny that within a week of returning to these boards, a topic that I was infamous for suddenly crops up. Anyway, time to get started. First, clear a few things up.

Firstly, The Bible does not decide for us what is good or bad. People decide to follow the Bible themselves, and listen to it on their own accord. I'm avoiding going into belief here.

Secondly, Sex =/= Love. Love exists outside of sexual intercourse. Sex is an act of reproduction, and sexual desires can be for inanimate objects as easily as it could be for another person. Sexual preferences, if they are not for personal comfort in committing the act, are largely vanity tailored by society.


Homosexuallity and Bisexuality are "wrong", but not in the manner which most people think it is. A majority just consider it incorrect because it is extremely easy to diagnose and it is a minority in the public. Of course, the opposition will just claim that the majority opinion isn't correct, and rightfully so. Correctness isn't decided democratically.

Now, the reason why it is incorrect is because it objectifies the aspects of sex into being about nothing more than physical appearance or a state of being. De-humanizing, prideful, lustful, discriminatory objectifying to serve only as a purpose of entertainment. No different from liking someone only because they are rich. This problem exists outside of the specific definition of homosexual or heterosexual.

This is a big problem in today's society, for many reasons. Women are seen only as possessions and trophies by men, and thus are not treated with respect. Other women cave in to these ideas, and see themselves only valuable if they are hanging off of a man's arm. If you look at how popularity associates two groups together, you see that this is just a shallow generalization that ignores the humanity of either party. It breeds ignorance towards how everyone see's each other. What you should do is view each other as individuals.

Even with things that we consider "sexy", such as large breasts or a thin figure (do not say that you do not agree with those. Not my point.), those are also a product of accepting peer pressure. What is considered "sexy" is some arbitrary association evolved strictly through society, and is subject to change as a society changes it's opinion. The only relationship seems to be that the more idolized appearances are rarer, and that possessing a rarer attribute somehow makes something more valuable.

When you break down your senses, your sense of touch doesn't care what you have sex with. It stimulates just the same. What you smell or hear isn't as important unless it is extremely obtrusive. What you see, now that is meaningless until you assign meaning to it. It is this association that assigns what is sexy or attractive and what isn't, very similar to how our brains assign meaning to the words we see written on this forum. It is arbitrary, and really all the sexual association is, is vanity.

What a relationship should be about is who someone is, and not what someone is. Devaluing someone into such a system breeds a variety of problems.


Now, I'm sure you are going to say the obvious counter-argument: "Oh, but I love my partners! I respect who they are, so I can have sex with them anyway!". Now, this commits the [strike]first[/strike] second problem that I listed above, but it is also untrue, because a sexual relationship is still bred on either the purpose of procreation, or the obsessive objectifying. If you are not doing it for procreation, then it is for objectification or vanity.

You can take any relationship of "love", and argue that you should not have sex with the individual. For instance, I can love my neighbor's wife, and in this love I will have enough respect for her in which I would not put her into a position where she would cheat or be given the option to cheat. Not be so cruel as to take my primal desires and ignore the situation that someone else is in.

To have sex with an individual remains a choice, and since homosexual relationships fail any classification of being an attempt to procreate, it is simply for satisfying the idea that someone has about the world: a dehumanized issue of vanity.


What the Bible discriminates against isn't just homosexuality. The Bible discriminates against heterosexual relationships with another's wife or husband, too. Lust is the problem that is emphasized.

[Deus Dog]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"]What's a mitzvot? Wasn't Christianity branched from Judaism?(don't kill me if i"m wrong, I'm more interested in medical stuff). When you say "guidance" isn't that like leading you to a good place in their standards? I shouldn't have said law(big mistake) perhaps the Ten Commandments are a guidance, but should really be taken as a law, but they don't have to be taken as a law, but are good to follow so they lead you to a right place? [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I would notake my word on this as law (heh) because I'm still working on a so-called degree, but anyway...

A mitzvot is the 613 (?) commandments given in the Torah to Moses. Christianity only seems to refer to the ten. The word itself pretty much means commandment. I suppose you can pretty much say there are 10 Commandments in Christianity and a whole 613 in Judaism.

Christianity was pretty technically branched from Judaism. It began as a Jewish sect ad all I know is that it was very, very small. Early Christianity was pretty much Judaism with the belief that Jesus was the Messiah.

Guidance can be interpretated I think. It normally refers to social standards among a community, how to treat people (ironic?) etc etc. Following guidance will, according to the majority of the religions we're referring to, 'get you into a better place'. Although I'm only assuming that. I don't know this part all too well.

[Lunar]

[QUOTE]This is a big problem in today's society, for many reasons. Women are seen only as possessions and trophies by men, and thus are not treated with respect. Other women cave in to these ideas, and see themselves only valuable if they are hanging off of a man's arm. If you look at how popularity associates two groups together, you see that this is just a shallow generalization that ignores the humanity of either party. It breeds ignorance towards how everyone see's each other. What you should do is view each other as individuals.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]Yes but to certain men, today, from what I've seen in my own home town. A man who treats his woman as a "prize" is kinda, well, you know, not a good guy, therefore that man is frowned upon by the other men, who see their women as something that should be treasured and not treated like crap.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]When you break down your senses, your sense of touch doesn't care what you have sex with. It stimulates just the same. What you smell or hear isn't as important unless it is extremely obtrusive. What you see, now that is meaningless until you assign meaning to it. It is this association that assigns what is sexy or attractive and what isn't, very similar to how our brains assign meaning to the words we see written on this forum. It is arbitrary, and really all the sexual association is, is vanity. [/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]Okay, as a Christian, I know and feel when you have sex with someone, whether it be man or woman(aside from objects), spirits entertwine. whatever spirit the person has(i.e., anger problems, homosexuality) that other person begins to have those same feelings. Maybe another reason why people are homosexual.[/COLOR]


[QUOTE]What the Bible discriminates against isn't just homosexuality. The Bible discriminates against heterosexual relationships with another's wife or husband, too. Lust is the problem that is emphasized.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]I know that and that's true, too. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE]
[B][I]What Deus wrote:[/I][/B]
Guidance can be interpretated I think. It normally refers to social standards among a community, how to treat people (ironic?) etc etc. Following guidance will, according to the majority of the religions we're referring to, 'get you into a better place'. Although I'm only assuming that. I don't know this part all too well.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]I think you are right, Deus, and I believe that [I]some[/I] religion's guidance [I]will [/I]get you to a better place.[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

That "feel" probably comes from Vasopressin or other various chemicals. These chemicals are tied to conditioning in obsessive-compulsives, and are emitted in large amounts during intercourse by the man. I have heard of people having these intertwining spirits with animals and inanimate objects, so I do not give that much weight to intercourse.

[Lunar]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']That "feel" probably comes from Vasopressin or other various chemicals. These chemicals are tied to conditioning in obsessive-compulsives, and are emitted in large amounts during intercourse by the man.
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]no, not necessarily. if they are emitted in large amounts by a man, but a woman has her first time having sex with another woman, they may have those feelings, too. i'm expecting you to say that they were probably gay in the first place, but is that really so? maybe they were curious, as people are curious who try drugs, and most likely end up being drug addicts, but weren't drug addicts in the first place.[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Women, strangely, are much easier to diagnose because they are more attracted to things like status and power rather than a nice butt. This focus is more oriented towards the emotional satisfaction rather than the physical stimuli, and so lesbian relationships are founded more on pathological desires rather than physical association. The sex is just a side benefit.

Sexuality is way too diverse for there to be some sequence of genetic coding that dictates what people perceive.

[Lunar]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Women, strangely, are much easier to diagnose because they are more attracted to things like status and power rather than a nice butt. This focus is more oriented towards the emotional satisfaction rather than the physical stimuli, and so lesbian relationships are founded more on pathological desires rather than physical association. The sex is just a side benefit.

Sexuality is way too diverse for there to be some sequence of genetic coding that dictates what people perceive.[/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Indigo"]Good point. However, not all women are like that. i understand the fact that most of us are looking for emotional stuff. And I also agree that someone cannot be "born"gay, hm, but I never said that. But what about men?[/COLOR]

[Darren]

[SIZE="1"]Well, I suppose I'll give my opinion on this matter. What you do with it is up to you. Take it or leave it, this is my only post in this thread because I know that it's such a touchy subject and I don't feel like debating this [I]again![/I]

My opinion on the matter: people will always find fault in the minority, regardless of what medium they use to justify it, it will never be accepted until it's a widely practiced concept. And let's face it, homosexuality will never be widely practiced in the U.S. Racism still exists, but I do believe it will wither eventually. (Not in my life time)

Now, since religion has already impeded on this discussion, I'll attempt to address that as well. While there are several verses against homosexual tendencies in the old testament, there are also some in the new testament. (So, for those of you who believe that the old testament acts as a guide before Jesus was supposedly died for our sins, you can count it out because it's in the new testament as well)[/SIZE]

[quote name='chibi-master']YES, I KNOW that the bible says being bi, lesbian or gay is wrong. My rebutle is, DO YOUR OWN D*** THINKING AND STOP LETTING THE BIBLE DO IT FOR YOU!!![/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]This seems to be a contradiction. For christians, the bible is their way of life (not necessarily ruling the way they think) It's the way they were raised. If you were taught from the time you were a child that lying is wrong, you know it's wrong. It's the same thing.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"]but, what about our set of rules for the U.S.? should we just forget that set of rules, too?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]I'm not sure I understand this... Are there any rules stating that homosexuality is against the law that I should know about? True, many states don't allow marriages to occur because, as with most important things in life, change takes time. But until I see a law that says homosexuals are breaking the law, I refuse to acknowledge this statement as viable evidence. (Especially considering that marriage is legal in two states) The fact is that the American government was established on christianity and therefor, many of our "guidelines" tend to be ethnocentric. This is why we have so many radical christians in the U.S. However, not everyone is religious at all and shouldn't be effected by laws based on something they don't believe in.

And while I'm discussing the bible as concrete, let me say that it's not. I read an article a couple months back, (forgive me for not posting it; I don't have a link) stating that it's likely that not even the apostles wrote the new testament as it is very likely they were illiterate. (Remember, these men were common folk in an era where only the privileged are lucky enough to learn) The article went on to explain that it's likely the pen never touched paper until several decades after Jesus' supposed life.

Furthermore, when you look at the Roman Empire and the Council of Nisei, what could have already been mistranslated (from the apostles to the scribes) was further screwed up when the council decided what officially went into the bible. They picked (under no guidance from anyone but their own greed at ruling the people) what made it into the bible. Who's to say they didn't add a few rules here and there? (And yes, they were rules at that time, punishable by death if you didn't obey)

And again, when the Gnostic gospels were discovered (I don't know how much later they were discovered) they were denounced as heresy and completely ignored. I believe the only reason was because, they directly contradicted the changes that the Romans had already decided upon.

Finally, if it wasn't bad enough, when it was translated into the english King James version, it was even further misconstrued. You might think that a few words here and there wouldn't make a big difference in comprehension, but several passages have been found that, even with one word difference from the original, changes the entire idea behind the passage.

So I'll concur that the bible serves as a guideline to every day life for [I]christians,[/I] but I'll agree with CHW when I say that you can't take every word for absolute truth. The bible wasn't written by saints. (And likely not even apostles) You've got to make up your mind what you think is right. Morals are your source, but if you derive that many things are immoral just because the bible says so, I would consider that ignorant.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"]Whoa, there. Hold up. Never said I didn't like homosexuals, I have a friend who's bi, and a very cool person. I just don't agree with their way of life is all.:catgirl:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]Well, there you go. Do you witness to this person? If you're a good christian, you would. (Or at least that's what the bible says) If not, then take the verse in the bible that says no sin is greater than the other and then we could assume that you're in the same boat as all the homosexuals in the world.
See, you've been raised in a country where freedom of choice is a give-in... So much so, that you probably didn't even think about the fact that you were sinning. (You might even find it an unfair sin because you might make your bisexual friend mad at you for nagging him/her about such issues) Welcome to the GLBT club.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Now, the reason why it is incorrect is because it objectifies the aspects of sex into being about nothing more than physical appearance or a state of being. De-humanizing, prideful, lustful, discriminatory objectifying to serve only as a purpose of entertainment. No different from liking someone only because they are rich. This problem exists outside of the specific definition of homosexual or heterosexual.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]Your logic fails and here's why:
What that statement implies is that if two men or two women fall in love, that it's only for sex, but if a man and woman fall in love, there's only a possibility that it's about sex. You see what I'm saying here?
I'm assuming your straight so your opinion would be considered biased anyway, but I know for a fact that not all gays and lesbians are together for the sex; they are truly in love and the sexual aspect isn't even a factor, although it does come into play when you consider a deeper relationship. (No different than heterosexual couples)
And when you talk about De-humanizing, prideful, lustful, blah blah blah, etc., you should actually be looking at your entirely prejudiced statement, which does that very thing to every homosexual who reads that. Completely uncalled for, narrow minded, and ignorant. Sorry, it just is.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"]maybe they were curious, as people are curious who try drugs, and most likely end up being drug addicts, but weren't drug addicts in the first place.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]Scientific research has shown that some people are born with a gene that makes them extremely susceptible to drug addiction and alcoholism. It's not their fault, but whereas, someone who experiments with drugs but doesn't possess the gene would be able to quit easier, someone with the gene finds it a LOT harder even after only one attempt with the drug in question. It's not their fault; they were born that way.

I'm not going to get into the argument of whether or not people are born gay because there isn't evidence to support either side. It's all opinion. Instead, I'll relate back to the single cross-cultural rule in this world: "Treat others how you want to be treated."

If people want to hate on homosexuals, that's their prerogative. Sadly, the main cause is religion and when you think about it, how can you believe in something that's meant to unite people when all it does is tear them apart? I may be a self-proclaimed atheist, but I do believe that most things come full circle. Call it karma if you want, but I just believe in entropy and coincidence. Everyone has bad stuff coming at them. Figuring out when it hits is the key. I for one, want to be able to say I'm a good person when something bad comes my way.[/SIZE]

[Lunar]

[QUOTE]I'm not sure I understand this... Are there any rules stating that homosexuality is against the law that I should know about? True, many states don't allow marriages to occur because, as with most important things in life, change takes time. But until I see a law that says homosexuals are breaking the law, I refuse to acknowledge this statement as viable evidence. (Especially considering that marriage is legal in two states) The fact is that the American government was established on christianity and therefor, many of our "guidelines" tend to be ethnocentric. This is why we have so many radical christians in the U.S. However, not everyone is religious at all and shouldn't be effected by laws based on something they don't believe in.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]Okay, what I meant was that to Christians(I don't think you understood me right), the law in the Bible is just like the law for the U.S. There's no law for the U.S. stating that homosexuality is against the law, but in the Bible there is. So no, they're not breaking the law for the U.S., they're breaking a law in the Bible. Viable evidence. The American government was established on Christianity, you're right, and our guidlines are based on Christianity, must I bring up how our ancestors came here under Christianity?[/COLOR]


[QUOTE][SIZE="1"]Well, there you go. Do you witness to this person? If you're a good christian, you would. (Or at least that's what the bible says) If not, then take the verse in the bible that says no sin is greater than the other and then we could assume that you're in the same boat as all the homosexuals in the world.
See, you've been raised in a country where freedom of choice is a give-in... So much so, that you probably didn't even think about the fact that you were sinning. (You might even find it an unfair sin because you might make your bisexual friend mad at you for nagging him/her about such issues) Welcome to the GLBT club.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]If you must know, I did witness to her. That didn't break up our friendship, though and I din't force it on her, that's what a lot of people are thinking about Christians nowadays. some Christians try to [I]make[/I] others believe in what they believe in, instead of just telling them/ I know that verse very, well Darren. So, now you know I"m a good Christian(and I'm well prepared). As for the part about me being raised in a country where freedom of choice is given, alot of my descendants didn't, and I spend a decent amount of time studying about my heritage(I'm black, you should know already). Every day I think about what I sinned on, so I usually know when I'm sinning and if I don't, I read my handy Bible. And my bisexual friend wasn't mad at me. [I]Why?[/I] Because I didn't force my beliefs on her.[/COLOR]



[QUOTE] "Treat others how you want to be treated."[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]I do so.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]If people want to hate on homosexuals, that's their prerogative. Sadly, the main cause is religion and when you think about it, how can you believe in something that's meant to unite people when all it does is tear them apart? I may be a self-proclaimed atheist, but I do believe that mostly things come full circle. Call it karma if you want, but I just believe in entropy and coincidence. Everyone has bad stuff coming at them. Figuring out when it hits is the key. I for one, want to be able to say I'm a good person when something bad comes my way.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]
the problem is that you have to accept, as a Christian that not everyone's going to agree with you. it wasn't intended to tear people apart and it wasn't intended to be argued of in the first place. [I]ALL[/I] things come in full circle. However, who's to say that a Christian is wrong? Who's to say he's right? bringing up relegion again- God knows who's right or wrong. and the Bible says(not the most perfect quote) that "the man who doesn't accept reproof is a fool and a man who accepts reproof is wise." so maybe doing good is considered doing bad just because the other person is offended. life ain't easy.[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote]What that statement implies is that if two men or two women fall in love, that it's only for sex, but if a man and woman fall in love, there's only a possibility that it's about sex. You see what I'm saying here?
I'm assuming your straight so your opinion would be considered biased anyway, but I know for a fact that not all gays and lesbians are together for the sex; they are truly in love and the sexual aspect isn't even a factor, although it does come into play when you consider a deeper relationship. (No different than heterosexual couples)
And when you talk about De-humanizing, prideful, lustful, blah blah blah, etc., you should actually be looking at your entirely prejudiced statement, which does that very thing to every homosexual who reads that. Completely uncalled for, narrow minded, and ignorant. Sorry, it just is.[/quote]

I see your statement, and I do think I should have made the distinction for gay relationships as well. Two men who "love" each other don't necessarily have to have sex with each other, either. There are going to be couples that are based more on compatibility than on the physical nature of the relationship, and in fact this seems to be the dominant type of relationships in lesbian relationships.

But... love and sex are not the same. You can have a relationship without having sex. Just the same, you can have sex without a relationship. I am not talking about love. I am talking about sex, and sexual preferences. Also, you can't just throw your hands up in the air and cry prejudice whenever your beliefs face criticism or are challenged.

[Rachmaninoff]

I have no intention of responding to anything other than the opening post. Because when it comes to a question like this, I find it amusing that people get so worked up over what happens behind [I]someone else's[/I] closed doors. What they do in their homes, whether straight, bi, lesbian or gay, is in my opinion, [I]their business[/I].

The only time it's our business is if said parties are not of consenting age or if they didn't consent to the contact in the first place. Otherwise, if there are any consequences to be had, that's between them and God (if God even exists that is).

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]I'm going to follow Rach's lead and not bother wading through the mess that's developed here aside from answering the original poster's question. The debate is never resolved because even if the people involved change, the arguments always stay the same.

Anyway to answer the OP, honestly, I'm a neutral in this whole thing, if people want to love someone of their same gender it's their business not mine. I, and the majority of other sane people have got enough worries in their own lives than to be concerned about what people do on their own time and whether or not it endangers their immortal soul.

Man these kinds of topics really bring out a severe indifference in me, here's hoping it doesn't crop up again for another few months.[/SIZE]