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.
This statement has always struck me as being fairly ridiculous. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with those who have a stance on the "morality" of homosexuality, but to say that they would have to experience homosexuality before declaring it wrong is asinine. There are many matters in this life which we, as society, have declared to be morally wrong and even legally wrong without the majority having need to experience them first. You do not have to be a victim before you know murder, rape, assault, etc are wrong. You do not have to lose a finger to know it's a dumb idea to juggle butcher knives. You don't have to kick a kitten to know that animal abuse is morally wrong.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by burdman30ott6
This statement has always struck me as being fairly ridiculous. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with those who have a stance on the "morality" of homosexuality, but to say that they would have to experience homosexuality before declaring it wrong is asinine. There are many matters in this life which we, as society, have declared to be morally wrong and even legally wrong without the majority having need to experience them first. You do not have to be a victim before you know murder, rape, assault, etc are wrong. You do not have to lose a finger to know it's a dumb idea to juggle butcher knives. You don't have to kick a kitten to know that animal abuse is morally wrong.
I agree in that I worded that statement wrong. But the actions you list actually harm other people and ourselves, and show that your putting a natural occurrence of love and human sexuality in the same category as act of immorality, implying somehow that homosexuality is akin to killing another human being.
I agree that I worded that statement wrong, but what I meant to say was one cannot make a moral argument against homosexuality if it doesn't harm him in anyway and if he is not homosexual; nor can he create an immorality out of something that is in fact a natural occurrence of human love and sensuality, not an occurrence of anything evil.
edit on 1-6-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I watched the movie. I thought the performances were fantastic, the movie itself, not so much.
I must admit, I do find it difficult to watch man on man action, but my offence lies not in the act of homosexuality, but in my own thoughts regarding it, and the imagery that pops in my mind viewing such material. I can not conclude that homosexuality is evil without first knowing homosexuality, and that involves first being homosexual. It is an outright lie to claim something is wrong, while at the same time not understanding it. Every time one becomes uncomfortable with the thought of homosexuality, it is his own thoughts and views he is uncomfortable with. Sorry, but your views are not their problem or fault, they're yours. You should first address those instead of homosexuality itself.
Originally posted by colbe
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I watched the movie. I thought the performances were fantastic, the movie itself, not so much.
I must admit, I do find it difficult to watch man on man action, but my offence lies not in the act of homosexuality, but in my own thoughts regarding it, and the imagery that pops in my mind viewing such material. I can not conclude that homosexuality is evil without first knowing homosexuality, and that involves first being homosexual. It is an outright lie to claim something is wrong, while at the same time not understanding it. Every time one becomes uncomfortable with the thought of homosexuality, it is his own thoughts and views he is uncomfortable with. Sorry, but your views are not their problem or fault, they're yours. You should first address those instead of homosexuality itself.
Reading through today's comments. Oh my, it is "bigotry" when you state evil is evil. Everyone must be
allowed to do as they please, no matter the perversion. I was trying to be civil with my "I respectfully disagree."
I take it back. Are you all nuts, promoting sodomy? There certainly is something wrong with the "act."
God made man to be united with a woman. Sex is for marriage and pro-creation, both. Look at the fruit
of sexual sin, wake up people.
Save your soul.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by colbe
In that case, never EVER wear a condom when you have sex, okay? If you've used a condom before then you're also an abomination, sound fair?
If sex is only for procreation then why did god give us the urge to have sex multiple times per week? Why didn't he make it where sex resulted in a baby every single time? Why does he make some women and men barren? Why do some women give birth to stillborn babies?
Your argument is SO close-minded it's pathetic, and it holds absolutely no water when you look at the bigger picture. Apparently you're not interested in the bigger picture though, you'd rather close yourself off from the world and stay stuck in a book.
My brother is gay, and I find it extremely disrespectful that you see him as less than human and an abomination. Get real. Have a little empathy for your fellow man.edit on 1-6-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)edit on 1-6-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
EDIT
Let me add; I wonder how many of you clowns arguing about what homosexuality is or isn't actually are gay or know more that one gay whom you have daily contact with?
I have been in daily contact with gay men for several years and from that experience all of you arguing about what it is or isn't come across as complete and utter idiots.
edit on 1-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by theRhenn
Closing people off from the chance to truly love another person because YOU do not agree with it is close-minded. Shutting off someone's god-given right to be loved is hypocritical, especially since you claim to preach love itself. You are hypocritical my friend, not me, and Jesus would be absolutely ashamed and sickened of the way you think of certain people, calling them "abominations" and all.
You say I have no basis for believing in god, but you are 100% wrong. What I see everyday is my foundation for believing in a god, yours is a 3,000 year old book. Lol. Just because you don't think my foundation is good enough doesn't mean it isn't one.
I don't think your foundation is good enough for believing in the type of god that you do. You trust words written by men, I believe what I can see, you believe I something you will never see. There's a huge difference between our beliefs and mine has a much stronger foundation than yours ever will. Your "foundation" can't decide what's what and 40,000 denominations claim your foundation as their own. Your foundation crumbles with the interpretation of a few words, mine endures forever and will continue to endure long after your book is all but forgotten.
I felt the same way about gay people before my brother ever even came out of the closet, before I ever even suspected that he was gay. How can you claim to know how I would feel when you know next to nothing about me? Talk about self-righteous. Lol. You think you're better than other people all because you believe a certain way and they don't. Get over yourself.
edit on 1-6-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
This is america. We live and let live.. let living doesnt mean forcing us to deal with your sinful ways. It means you do it in your own home and leave the rest of the world alone about it.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by windword
The ironic thing is, no one is forcing anything on him. No one is telling him to go out and have sex with a hundred guys.
I'm guessing he wouldn't "deal" with his son if he were gay, he would just kick him to the curb without ever talking to him again. At least that's the vibe I'm getting from his posts.
Intolerant is the only word I can think of to describe what he believes. I'm not tolerant of intolerance personally.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Why not stick to calling people P.O.S.'s and being glad that they died of AIDS and HIV?...edit on 2-6-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)