Blame not Homosexuality, but attack the root.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Actually...

I say that if we have to blame someone (we really need to stop blaming period, but I digress) we all blame heterosexuals. If they hadn't been so busy reproducing like rabbit on Viagra, there wouldn't be so many homosexuals.

After all, homosexuals had to be born somehow, right?

edit on CMondaypm434323f23America/Chicago09 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

That is perhaps the most amusing thought I have read in quite sometime.
You literally must agree...the rise of homosexual numbers is proportional to the rise of population, therefore, less population = less gay people.

so, all we must do then is to stop having babies worldwide..then no more gay people will be born to threaten us with extinction!

This failed logic in that you restrict the possibilities seeking only a specific outcome.
I contend that a strong, spritually grounded father and role model assures that a boy will not become"gay"
Add to the overwhelming fact that endocrine disruptors have inundated our food supply leading to messed up endocrine systems that over/under produce hormones leading to girls now ging through puberty at 10 years of age and little boys growing breats it isn't any wonder that the lack of a strong male role model and the messed up endocrine systems lead to alot of confusion.
Then there are those that want to teach prepubescants that are suffering from all that about homosexual acts in schools adding to the confusion.
Then add onto all that the rejection of teaching absolute truths by which to discern and think logicaly using critical thought processes but only to be replaced by morals that are based on subjective truths that change as you do ...well....what's all the wonder?
oh...I know, blame it all on those that do have a discerning mind and understand about absolute truth and have no confusion about the issue...They must be bigoted and hateful and...
what blows me away is the gullibility to believe still to this day the idea that there is a gay gene that makes you born that way.
It was one study that later had to retract the conclusions becaus eit was fraudulently concluded.
I simply state, NO!, there is no evidence anyone is born that way.
There is a TON OF EVIDENCE about the problems from environmental factors that are messing with the endocrine system like PCB's and an epidemic of fatherless families.

I must admit, I am more than a little offended that you class homosexuality and being single as social problems, even going as far as to suggest biologic or genetic problems as the cause, and that they need to be "fixed". I am single for more reasons than you can understand or I care to explain.

This goes back to the old argument used by fundamentalists that homosexuality is that reason for the fall of the Roman and Greek empires. It is a sad stretch at best, bigotry at worst.

reply to post by mayabong


Playing devils advocate.

as a single man, i am sick and tired of couples flaunting their relationship in my face, all that kissing, hugging and having children, I get it, you are a couple, no need to sit together of have PDA's for me to get that......

reply to post by DavidWillts

Well argued, DavidWilts.

I, at least, take your point entirely. Decent, well-meaning Christians will often try to soften and humanize the uncompromising strictures of the Bible, which make modern folk uncomfortable. They want to believe in a decent, well-meaning God, and don't like to be reminded that the one they actually worship is, by scriptural account, nothing of the kind.

Even well-meaning agnostics like SaturnFX will do this, not because they are apologists for Christianity but because they don't want to think of the decent Christians they know as barbaric and intolerant.

The truth, however, is that the Bible is inconsistent on the subject of homosexuality. The authors of Leviticus were obviously screaming homophobes; as for Paul, he was clearly in flight from his own sexuality. However, we must not forget Elisha's homosexual embrace of a 'dead' boy, whom he brings back to life this way (2 Kings 4:32-35), the hint of an echo of this in the raising of Lazarus by Jesus (John 11:1 suggests that Lazarus and Jesus may have had a 'special' relationship) and, of course, the many indications in the Gospel of John that Jesus had a similar relationship with the author (John 13:25 and 19:26-28, for example). Leonardo da Vinci, for one, had no doubt; iin The Last Supper he clearly portrays the two as lovers.

However, this is a small potato as well as a hot one. On the whole, the Bible is homophobic; but more than that, it is erotophobic. Religious authorities hate and fear sex because they know it is more powerful than their precious faith.

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Romans 1:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lesbians are a no no too. I really wish people would stop trying to say that the bible somehow condones homosexuality. Nothing is taken out of context, it is really clear on the subject.

The bible, Leviticus specifically, tells you that children who disobey their parents must be stoned, that women must not go out in public while on their periods, that those who work on the sabbath (does not matter what day you consider it) must be killed, I could go on and on, take it all, or leave it all, stop cherry picking when you are a sinner yourself.

I have to go, I have a toasted bacon cheese and tomato sandwich waiting for me, oh wait, pork, meat with dairy, darn, i am in holy trouble now!

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
We are all humans, one species, only fellow human brothers and sisters.

The problem of singles and homosexuality lay with us - society. It is what we can do for them that will encourage them back to the fold, to have hope and share with our evolution and progress. No human needs to be alone, or without companionship and trust from the opposite sex as a child and adult.

Did you suggest that we need to be encouraged to return to ''the fold''?

What is this 'fold'?

If I return and don't see a good return on my investment of my talents and abilities as a human,,, can I get a refund of some sort?

Is the Fold a physical place, or a State of Mind?

Please give directions to said "Fold" place if it is so, and Explain how to attain this "Fold" state of mind in a concise manner.

If the "Fold is a Religion please state the top Deity and his powers and rules of engagement.

If the Fold is what you call Western Civilization, then I do believe that there is some property that collectively belongs to homosexuals that need to be given back to the UnFolded.

Please start with the contents of the Vatican for all returns.

If I belong to the "UnFolded" class,, what are the major steps to take to become a member of the "Fold"

Thank you for your prompt answers to my questions.

PS: Share in your Evolution and progress?

Please show where you evolved and progressed,, and state How that is coming along for you?

reply to post by LaughingatHumanity


I want to say that I feel you are being wayyyyy to bigoted to the homosexual community linking their existance and the present rise and root cause to being the offspring from dumb, unintelligent and poor people making too many babies.
That is so insulting I don't know where to begin.

reply to post by RyanFromCan

The bible, Leviticus specifically, tells you that children who disobey their parents must be stoned, that women must not go out in public while on their periods, that those who work on the sabbath (does not matter what day you consider it) must be killed, I could go on and on, take it all, or leave it all, stop cherry picking when you are a sinner yourself.

I have to go, I have a toasted bacon cheese and tomato sandwich waiting for me, oh wait, pork, meat with dairy, darn, i am in holy trouble now!

And you will continue to feel clever until you actually read and see that I specifically told everyone that I don't believe in the bible nor do i agree with it.

Well, now that it is more and more accepted to be homosexual, if it is genetic, the gene won't be as common in the future if they don't make children. Years ago, it wasn't accepted at all, so even people with homosexual tendencies married and had children thus passing on the gene.

Of course, this is if homosexuality is genetic which hasn't been proven.

I feel like lesbianism is more social than gay men. Men don't really do it for the kick of it or change preferences, once they like men, they rarely go back compared to women.

Also, women are much prettier than the average man which could explain lesbianism even more!

reply to post by Astyanax


Wow someone who actually gets it! Star 4 u (not sarcastic at all seriously).

I, at least, take your point entirely. Decent, well-meaning Christians will often try to soften and humanize the uncompromising strictures of the Bible, which make modern folk uncomfortable. They want to believe in a decent, well-meaning God, and don't like to be reminded that the one they actually worship is, by scriptural account, nothing of the kind.

That is the thing that kind of rubs me the wrong way. Don't get me wrong I think people are allowed to think and believe whatever they wish. If someone feels the need to hate homos,blacks or Jews. That is fine by me I really don't care about that.
But when people want to make up ridiculous things so that they can justify their belief in a book that tells them that homosexuality is wrong. I mean at that point how is this shopping cart christian any different than any "pagan" group?
The neo-pagan systems of belief have way more problems than your regular shopping cart christian (that is a whole other story) but they both make the basic errors of claiming to worship one thing when in reality they are just making crap up and calling it their religion. And people can make up their own religions as much as they want but they should at least take the time to at least name their made up christian offshoot. I guess it is just the lack of integrity that bothers me.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Yes their other favorite approach, don't like what it says? Rewrite it! Also good to note, all the translations he offers are slightly different in wording but they all pretty much say "guys don't have sex with guys".

edit on 9-4-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)

how about you take it from the original texts and translate it, yes, there are so many messed up translations it is not funny, oddly, one of the worst translations is the KJV, it was translated, and written, not only to pass "the message" on, but to also be a beautiful work of literature with beautiful language.

reply to post by DavidWillts

And you will continue to feel clever until you actually read and see that I specifically told everyone that I don't believe in the bible nor do i agree with it.

And yet, wait for it......The funny thing is, you QUOTE it, nice job I must say for a non believer, to use something you don't believe in, to support your argument. I stand by my comment just as I did before. By the way, I am a Christian, just not a right wing, nut job bible thump-er.

reply to post by User8911

if (homosexuality) is genetic, the gene won't be as common in the future if they don't make children.

There are other ways in which a gene for homosexuality might prosper.

Genes often come in two forms, one 'dominant' and one 'recessive'. The gene for eye colour is an example of such a gene. Everybody inherits two copies, one from their father, the other from their mother. If both copies are of the dominant version, the individual will obviously be born with brown eyes; but if one copy each of the dominant and recessive gene are present, the individual's eyes will still be brown. Only if two copies of the recessive gene are present will the individual in question be blue-eyed.

Imagine another gene of the same kind. Its effect is to confer some kind of reproductive advantage exclusively on women. Perhaps it makes them healthier, or more fertile, or attractive to men. Whatever the advantage, it will be enough to cause the gene to be propagated down the generations.

In men, however, this gene operates differently. The dominant form has no effect on them. The recessive form causes them to develop as homosexuals.

Only a man who inherits two copies of the recessive form, one from his father and one from his mother, will be gay. He himself may not pass on the recessive version of the gene, but he doesn't have to; his heterosexual brothers and sisters, who carry a recessive 'gay' copy as well as a dominant 'straight' one, will do that work for him. Gay genes, if they exist, are mainly passed on by straight people.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

I'm not gay myself but this is great song and if I was gay this would be my anthem

I'm happy, I'm carefree, I'm gay , I was born this way.

reply to post by manna2


I was attacking ops premise that a functional society is one where reproduction is the primary virtue. Read my post for what it is not what you want. Context is key.

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Wow someone who actually gets it! Star 4 u (not sarcastic at all seriously).

I, at least, take your point entirely. Decent, well-meaning Christians will often try to soften and humanize the uncompromising strictures of the Bible, which make modern folk uncomfortable. They want to believe in a decent, well-meaning God, and don't like to be reminded that the one they actually worship is, by scriptural account, nothing of the kind.

That is the thing that kind of rubs me the wrong way. Don't get me wrong I think people are allowed to think and believe whatever they wish. If someone feels the need to hate homos,blacks or Jews. That is fine by me I really don't care about that.
But when people want to make up ridiculous things so that they can justify their belief in a book that tells them that homosexuality is wrong. I mean at that point how is this shopping cart christian any different than any "pagan" group?
The neo-pagan systems of belief have way more problems than your regular shopping cart christian (that is a whole other story) but they both make the basic errors of claiming to worship one thing when in reality they are just making crap up and calling it their religion. And people can make up their own religions as much as they want but they should at least take the time to at least name their made up christian offshoot. I guess it is just the lack of integrity that bothers me.

The purpose of religion is two-fold:

1) Comfort those who fear death and lack of purpose.

2) Make sure the human race behaves, instead of killing itself like the overpopulated mass of morons it is.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

This is what I see. It's there in your sign-off.
"I am legion"

reply to post by Starchild23


yes, this is why Yah hates religion as much, no way more than you.
If we spent more time discerning truth instead of religion we'ld be closer to Him and discerning absolutes using the critical thinking we inheritantly were given. Instead we elevate ourselves using 90 second soundbites that appeal to our egos and pride. If your ears are tickled you should become alerted to getting the business from the outset instead of it appealing to prideful indulgence.

reply to post by LaughingatHumanity


so you are implying that you were just making a point and that if it's contradictory to your intent it's ok? You were just making a point?
You countered your own arg is my point.