It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proud To Be Gay, Ashamed To Be Straight

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Anyway, just wanted to tell this story as a reminder that not all Christians are raving loons who take everything literally. Sorry if it sounds like a crappy parable, but it's a true story, and I thought it was kind of relevant.


Read Romans Chapter 1 and tell me a way besides literally to take it.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." ROMANS 1:26-27

Let's touch on Old Testament Law for a sec shall we.

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." LEVITICUS 20:13

Thank goodness that New Testament Law is not that harsh.
It all boils down to choice. Even if you are not Christian, you are born with a sense that homosexuality is wrong. People do not "Come out of the closet" because they were born gay and just can't fight it anymore.No,they come out when their lusts overtake their bodies and they no longer care if it is wrong. It's the same thing with adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia. All of these people know deep down inside that what they feel is wrong, but eventually their lusts get stronger and their bodies get weaker.
I don't think I've ever heard of a homosexual that was forced into that position. When you stick your penis into another mans anus, you make a choice to do so. The whole "Born that way" thing holds no water. Humans are not sexual beings until puberty. Something happens between birth and puberty that adversely affects the person.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging, I'm informing what the Bible says and then interjecting my own opinion along with it. Jesus said Love the sinner, but hate the sin. I can Love anyone and yet despise what they do. I sin myself daily and have to live with it. The problem comes when you sin and deny it or try to make the world accept what you do. Billions of people around the world do not have to accept you or condone your actions.




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
. Even if you are not Christian, you are born with a sense that homosexuality is wrong.

Utter balderdash. I was baptised as a Christian, at birth. And lo and behold, I was never born with any sense that homosexuality is wrong.
People learn what's right and wrong from their parents, their environment and their society, and as a result it's completely subjective. Nobody is born prejudiced against a certain group - they learn prejudice from other sources.



It's the same thing with adultery, pedophilia, necrophilia. All of these people know deep down inside that what they feel is wrong, but eventually their lusts get stronger and their bodies get weaker.


What I find hard to understand - and quite tragic - is why you try to put homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia and necrophilia. It's difficult to believe that you can't see the difference - I truly don't think anyone is that misguided. So why does it happen?

Homosexuality between two consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone else. Pedophilia and necrophilia both involve one party being unable to consent - can't you see the huge difference here? Consent versus no consent? And how on earth can you know for certain that "All of these people know deep down inside that what they feel is wrong"? You don't know that at all, do you?



The problem comes when you sin and deny it or try to make the world accept what you do. Billions of people around the world do not have to accept you or condone your actions.


No, the problem comes when you try to force your morals and ideas of sin upon someone else, or upon the rest of the world. You don't have that right. You don't get to judge (and despite your protestations to the contrary, that's exactly what you're doing).

You're right in one aspect, though.

"Billions of people around the world do not have to accept you or condone your actions." That's absolutely correct. And it applies to you, too, and your assertations.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   


Utter balderdash. I was baptised as a Christian, at birth. And lo and behold, I was never born with any sense that homosexuality is wrong.


Just because you are Baptised at birth does not make you Christian. Christianity is a choice as is homoness. If a 4 year old child gets angry and hits another child with a rock and knocks him out or he breaks one of his toys, what does he do? He tries to hide it because he senses it was wrong. Adam and Eve tried to hide from God. Now people are taking it further and trying to make God not exist. Like they have a say so in the matter.
As for homoness and necrophilia and pedophilia, they are all sexual perversions. Who does necrophilia hurt? Who does pedophilia hurt when it's a twelve year old girl who looks twenty and fully consents? Don't get me wrong, anyone who has sex with a minor needs to be beat with a wet noodle. But you can see how I feel about homoness now.
Remember if a man CHOOSES not to be with a woman, that is certainly not a sin. A man can live with a man and it not be a sin. A man can even Love another man and it not be a sin. I have friends whom I love deeply. It's when you add the element of sexuality that it becomes wrong. Homosexuality is not about love, it's about sex. Hence the term "HomoSEXUAL". It is a perversion just as bad as pedophilia and necrophilia and bestiality.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

Just because you are Baptised at birth does not make you Christian.



Did you read your own previous post? The one alleging that even non-Christians are somehow "born" with the feeling that certain things are wrong? That's what I was responding to.




As for homoness and necrophilia and pedophilia, they are all sexual perversions. Who does necrophilia hurt? Who does pedophilia hurt when it's a twelve year old girl who looks twenty and fully consents? (snip)
. It is a perversion just as bad as pedophilia and necrophilia and bestiality.


I'm beyond words.

You understand, right, that a 12 year old CANNOT LEGALLY GIVE consent? Neither can a dead body. I'm just astonished that you can willingly put a fully legal consensual act in the same category as necrophilia and pedophilia.

That mindest, to me, is absolutely and utterly tragic.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I think part of it was a good point. Who does necrophelia hurt? A dead body is just a shell. If you believe in an afterlife or not, you don't care about your body after you're dead. So who cares if it's sexually used? Who does it hurt?

As for the 12 year old thing... Tinkleflower, your defense of a consenting child was that they couldn't legally consent. In the past, homosexuals couldn't legally marry, too, but now they can.

Please note, I do not advocate any kind of either of these behaviors, they are perversions and wrong. Just pointing out what I saw reading through this.


[edit on 8-5-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Jake..I know you know the difference between an act of consent and an act of non-consent.

The legality was only one part of it - I honestly, truly didn't think I'd have to point out the obvious flaw in the entire "it's the same as necrophilia and pedophilia" debate.

But I'll try once more.

A dead body cannot consent to a sexual act - s/he is unable to appreciate and understand the facts and implications of any actions.

A child cannot consent to a sexual act - s/he is considered to be unable to appreciate and understand the facts and implications of any actions.

An adult can consent to a sexual act.

Ok - which is the odd one out? The terms used above refer not only to the legal position, but also to the practical interpretation.

Next, victimology was mentioned.

Who does necrophilia hurt? For one thing, desecration of a body is a sin in many religions and cultures around the world. Sure, the body itself might only be a shell (and that's not always a given - but an assumption in this context based upon most of us being Westerners), but there is still much emotional, spiritual and familial investment in the preservation of dignity of that body.

And I really, really shouldn't have to spell out "who is the victim?" when a 12 year old thinks she's old enough to have sex.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I agree completely about the child. I got hung up on the "LEGALLY" in there. I do not believe a 12-year-old is mature enough to be able to recognize all the implications of a sexual relationship to even be able to truely consent to such an act. As to the dead body, though, if no one finds out, who does it harm? I know its a sin, but according to many religions, so is homosexuality.

Your arguement is that in a homosexual relationship, all participants are consenting adults, aware of the implications of their decisions. In the case of necrophelia, the individuals involved who would face implications have consented. The other person, so far as western culture is concerned, doesn't care one way or another.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Alright Tinkle,

If two consenting adults agree to murder each other, is that a line to be drawn? Who does it hurt besides the two that consented to it in the first place? Try and argue that it hurts their loved ones. So does homoness. And in most people's eyes they are doing far worse than killing each other. They are damning each other.
I understand that I am presenting Christian morales to someone who does not believe in the Bible, but you do not have to be Christian to KNOW that homoness is wrong. A man's sexual parts do not fit another man's parts. That should be the first sign. A man's parts do however fit a woman's parts like a glove. Men and women were made for each other. Until recently with fornication running extremely rampant on this planet AIDS was primarily carried by homosexuals and drug users. That should be another sign. When two men have sex with each other or two women have sex with each other, what do they do? They emulate heterosexual sex. Men put their penis into an orifice. Women insert a PENIS shaped item into their orifices. Yet another sign.
The signs are everywhere.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

If two consenting adults agree to murder each other, is that a line to be drawn? Who does it hurt besides the two that consented to it in the first place?


You're serious? You're seriously, genuinely trying to aliken homosexuality to murder? Read your own words: "Who does it hurt besides the two that consented to it". Do you not think this is a vital point? That two people are going to die? Isn't that just a little bit different from two adults entering into a relationship where neither will die? Are you assuming that all gays have AIDS? Two people killing each other is obviously a case of two people being hurt. Taking the life of someone is NOT the same as entering into a fully consensual, LEGAL relationship.




I understand that I am presenting Christian morales to someone who does not believe in the Bible, but you do not have to be Christian to KNOW that homoness is wrong.


Your statement there appears to be somewhat contradictory. Sure, it's wrong in Christian doctrine. It's not wrong to most people who don't follow Christian doctrine. I'm not a Christian (as must be quite obvious), and I don't inherently "know" that homosexuality is wrong.



Until recently with fornication running extremely rampant on this planet AIDS was primarily carried by homosexuals and drug users.


You're right (even though I'm not entirely sure what your point is with this one). And since the mid 90s, the groups with the most rapidly increasing numbers are heterosexual men and women. What does this tell us? That heterosexual sex is wrong, too? I'm not sure what you were trying to say with this one.


It appears that part of your disgust stems from the act itself; do you feel the same way about a hetero couple who (for whatever reason - perhaps because of disability or surgery) cannot have sex "the usual way" and who then choose to perhaps employ anal sex as an alternative?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
.

WHEREAS

I was just reading the thread about a Canadian town that won't be holding a "hetero pride" day.

It got me thinking.

People of all stripes scream about their group being "bashed," as well as about how all they want for their subculture is "equality."

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

that the words "rights" and "acceptance" no longer carry any meaning, and shall no longer be used by me.

Henceforth, I will delete all references to "rights" and subsitute the phrase "Camera-time."

for instance.

"Members of the group held a rally in front of city hall yesterday, where they were booed and heckled by dozens of onlookers. Cunningham, the spokesperson for the group, led chants of "Equal Camera Time for all Americans, now!" In a statement to the press, Cunningham detailed how members' Camera Times have been curtailed by local city ordinances, as well as police misconduct. "Until America and the Present administration acknowledge our basic Camera Time we will be out here, raising a voice in the wilderness." Meanwhile, in front of the state Capitol . . . "





[edit on 8-8-2005 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   


That heterosexual sex is wrong, too


You are absolutely right tinkle. Sexual relations between anyone except for a man and his wife are wrong. God gave us sex as a means of procreation. It is a wonderful thing that is to be explored by a MAN and his WIFE. So cheers to you for finally getting one right.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Man, I'd forgotten about this thread. Nice to see some battles never stop


Okay, this thread seems to have become a "Gay is bad because God sez" style debate. Why is it when discussing religion no one ever mentions stuff like this:



From the Theravada Buddhist standpoint, all relationships: gay, lesbian or straight, are often considered personal matters of mutual consent. If a relationship promotes the happiness and well-being of both parties, then it is positive and acceptable. Many Buddhists believe that sexual orientation is beyond a person's control, as are race and gender. They feel that gays and lesbians should have the same civil rights and benefits as do all other persons.

Kerry Trembath wrote that Buddhists base ethical decisions on the consequences of one's actions, how we would feel if the action was done to us, and whether the action is helpful to our goal of Nirvana. He commented that Buddhist leaders have generally interpreted coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery to be sexual misconduct. But heterosexual or homosexual consensual sex within a relationship is acceptable.


or



"The Zen tradition deals with sexuality within the broader category of sensual indulgence...Both hedonism and ascetic masochism are violations of the Middle Path." Sexual practices which harm, manipulate, or exploit others is forbidden (e.g. sex with children, with persons who are engaged or married to others, with persons unable to give informed consent, etc.). Zen Buddhism does not "make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual" sex. It encourages sexual relationships that are "mutually loving and supportive."


www.religioustolerance.org...

Of course, there's also somewhat of a dissent by the Dalai Lama (same source and page as above):


An article in Newsweek states that "Although he has affirmed the dignity and rights of gays and lesbians, he has condemned homosexual acts as contrary to Buddhist ethics."


Something that may surprise those Christian Conservatives who feel muslims are the root of all evil in this world, Islam follows some of the same beliefs in regards to homosexuality. I won't quote it here, but suffice to say there are divisions of beliefs just as in all religions, and like Christianity, those who follow the most orthodox/conservative beliefs feel more strongly against homosexuality.

The one that really caught my eye though, that I will quote here, is this one:


Traditional Native American groups

In many aboriginal traditional faiths, homosexuals are held in high regard as having received a special blessing. They often became the shamans (healers) of the community. They are referred to as the berdache or "two-spirited" people.


If you look around there, there's a few different religions it discusses. Scientology also considers homosexuality to be rather bad (he suggests quarantine), but the Unitarian-Universalist Association welcomes homosexuals with open arms. I hate to say it, but I personally would love to see someone quote a line from Dianetics when backing up something of a religious nature, just for the change of pace.

Now granted, these are all from the same source and I didn't really research much further than this. And I'm sure everyone knows using a single source and accepting it blindly without being open to other possibilities is a bad way to handle a discussion...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw



That heterosexual sex is wrong, too


You are absolutely right tinkle. Sexual relations between anyone except for a man and his wife are wrong. God gave us sex as a means of procreation. It is a wonderful thing that is to be explored by a MAN and his WIFE. So cheers to you for finally getting one right.


I guess you missed the point completely.

Ah well.

Wait - are you just misreading the word prefix "hetero" there?

Or did you just not get the context or the question?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1

They feel that gays and lesbians should have the same civil rights and benefits as do all other persons.



As a practising Buddhist....this isn't news to me


Why did nobody mention it? Probably because there wasn't a Buddhist on the thread claiming that gays don't deserve equal rights? I don't really know - it honestly didn't occur to me to mention my religious beliefs, as they seemed pretty irrelevent in the context of legal rights, you know?



(snippety snip) ..... He commented that Buddhist leaders have generally interpreted coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery to be sexual misconduct. But heterosexual or homosexual consensual sex within a relationship is acceptable.


That's my point exactly.




Zen Buddhism does not "make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual" sex. It encourages sexual relationships that are "mutually loving and supportive."


Yup once more. But then again, to many Christians, we Buddhists are inherently wrong anyway, so by simple extension, what Buddhist leaders say wouldn't be right either.


Of course, there's also somewhat of a dissent by the Dalai Lama


Yes, there is. Without wanting to put words into His mouth, he's more of the opinion that "well, for a Buddhist, it would probably be unethical...but reigning in the urge might cause more harm in the long run, so that would be an even worse option...". We can see another angle here:

"Such proscriptions are for members of the Buddhist faith - and from "society's viewpoint," homosexual sexual relations can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless," according to the Dalai Lama.

There's a really good article here which provides more insight as to the opinions of His Holiness.

The rest of your post was great, too - I think I'd be doing us both a disservice if I dissected it any further


Suffice it to say, there's absolutely no logical reason why a gay couple should not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Ahh, political correctness. Again.

A Yellowknife city councilor suggested there be a Heterosexual Pride day. His reasoning wasn't to butt heads with the Gay Pride parade, but to offer a pride day for those who are not gay. You know, so all people can be represented. This action made national news.


It's ridiculous, reactionary, and attention grabbing.

Is he really that desperate to be noticed?



So why do we have to be ashamed of who we are if we don't agree or change our politics/race/sexuality to be in line with these special interest groups?


Who said anything about that? Why should you be ashamed of your heterosexuality? I truly hope you're not. That would be both silly and sad.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Thanks TinkleFlower
I appreciate your post as well-that article/interview was interesting, and put things in a different perspective. Maybe I'm having a latent rebellious stage, but I personally find Buddhism much more enticing than Christianity--not as in your face, do-this-or-be-damned. That and it's been a long time since I've heard of a Buddhist monk asking for donations so they can build a new basketball court (or get a new car.)


Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Who said anything about that? Why should you be ashamed of your heterosexuality? I truly hope you're not. That would be both silly and sad.


You're right, there is really no reason to be ashamed of one's sexuality. The underlying point is that unless you're a minority you get massively frowned on for displaying pride in your sexuality or race. As has been mentioned before in this thread, an African-American shouting "Black Pride" at a rally is often viewed as making a positive (or at least indifferent) political statement for his race. A caucasian American shouting "White Pride" at a rally is considered racist and is condemned.

This double standard is the main thing that gets to me. Is it legal to have a "straight-pride" parade? Sure. But you'll get looked at as homophobic and anti-homosexual. As far as the other days of the year being straight-pride days, the other parades being all about heterosexuality, I don't buy it. As someone else posted, Christmas is about a religion. President's Day, 4th of July, those are about national pride. Valentine's day is about a saint, although it's turned into a day for romance--which is not strictly heterosexual; Madison Avenue just plays to that because that's the largest audience. That much is about money, and there's nothing stopping you from getting an ad campaign set up to target homosexuals.

About the only two "heterosexual pride" days I can think of are Mother's Day and Father's Day, and even that's more perception than anything. You only have to be heterosexual to be a sperm donor, and even that the old fashion way, but biologically having a child does not make you a mother or father in my eyes, at least not someone to be celebrated as such on those days. That's an argument for another thread though... For here I'll just say that any homosexual can be just as good a parent as any heterosexual, and I don't buy into that "they'll convert and pervert the children" crap.

As far as the Black History Month vs. White History Rest-of-the-Year debate goes, which in my eyes is still part of the same reverse discrimination issue, I must have missed something in history class. I learned American history. I learned World history, which focused on European culture and history because I live in America, a nation stemmed from European ideals. Never once did any of my history teachers utter the words "Lincoln was a great White man," or "Da Vinci did so much for the White race." Do the history books list Pasteur or Einstein as white scientists that we should be proud we're associated with? No. George Washington was a great American, but George Washington Carver was a great African-American.

If I was taught anything about White history, focusing on the race as a whole, it was how crappy white people have treated everyone else. Everything I learned taught me to be ashamed of being white. My people stole the land from your people. My people enslaved your people. My people kept your people from getting a job. Black history month teaches African American kids to be proud of who they are, it teaches them about their past cultures, about the people who got them to the point they are today.

Although as a whole I think the idea of singling one group out of the human race as stupid, I think that if it's going to be done (and it will be) then by all means take pride. I have no problems with Black History Month. I have no problems with Gay Pride parades. But what I have a problem with is, when I decide I'd like to celebrate my stupid little demographic group, another stupid little demographic group thinks less of me whether I have anything against them or not. Is anyone physically stopping me from doing so? No. But I'd like to still be thought of as a decent human being the day after. That's right though; I'm forgetting my history classes. I'm white; I'm not a decent human being.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   


For here I'll just say that any homosexual can be just as good a parent as any heterosexual, and I don't buy into that "they'll convert and pervert the children" crap.


I disagree with you there. I work with neglected and abused children as a court appointed special advocate on a volluntary basis. It has been brought to the attention of the courts that statisticly speaking, over 90 percent of all children placed in foster care where the parents are homosexual end up with severe mental and emotional scars that go far beyond their experience that placed them in foster care to begin with. On the other side, only about 16 percent placed into heterosexual homes have more problems than originally. These are statistical facts.
Homo "SEXUALITY" is strictly a SEXUAL thing. I have said it before, a man can live with another man and be friends and if they are not having sex with each other then they are not homosexual. Sex is the key factor.
If two people consent to homosexual relations with each other then whatever, it should be kept private and not displayed, and most certainly should not be shown around children.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
It has been brought to the attention of the courts that statisticly speaking, over 90 percent of all children placed in foster care where the parents are homosexual end up with severe mental and emotional scars that go far beyond their experience that placed them in foster care to begin with. On the other side, only about 16 percent placed into heterosexual homes have more problems than originally. These are statistical facts.


Please provide sources for these alleged facts.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
The department of child services in Dallas Texas should show you anything you need.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
The department of child services in Dallas Texas should show you anything you need.


They aren't making claims here - you are.

Thus....

You'd be the one expected to back 'em up


Now...sources?




top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join