Quoted from chism There are many steps that can be taken to help prevent this kind of thing.

Ah, yes, the ol' "Blow J"

Though no minds are going to be changed, I offer a final opinion here on an earlier question that I realized the answer on much later when I pondered it. Someone had asked why (in relation to my long answer) something that doesn't hurt anyone else, such as homosexuality, is considered a sin.

From a Biblical standpoint, it boils down to two references from the very beginning of Genesis in regards to the very, very first command the God gave mankind. Right after man was created, God said this in Genesis 1:28:

"God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.'"

That is what I remembered as the real crux of why the Bible considers homosexuality a sin, and really, it isn't the act so much as it is the consequence. Reproduction is only possible through the union of a man and woman. No matter what the biology of the brain is or whether it is a choice or not or whether homosexuality has existed (accepted or not) for eons, it is impossible to deny the biological fact that two men or two women cannot reproduce. As such, a same sex union violates the first thing that man was told to do: Be fruitful and multiply.

Ok, so that being said, there is the argument that homosexual couples have children, yadda-yadda-yadda, and sure they possess children, but they did not have them biologically together. I guess they can adopt.

Then you have the other biological side of it in that woman was created specifically for man. They are two parts of a whole and literally fit together. Granted, this is more or less the proponent of "no premarital sex," but it fits into this topic since we're talking sex anyway. This basically says that once the two come together, they are as one. I know 90% of the world doesn't believe this, and that's your decision, but you have to wonder where we would be on the homosexual topic as well as all the other sexual stuff if we still believed that having sex with someone meant that we were forever with them.

This is Genesis 2:19-24.

"19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
      But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
       "This is now bone of my bones
       and flesh of my flesh;
       she shall be called 'woman,'
       for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Ok, so I went Bible again, but as that is the backbone of my life, that's what I have. I also figured the topic was descending again into nonsense, so I figured I'd at least interject some pure reference material into it, and hopefully either steer the conversation back, or end it on a better note than pedophiles and bestiality (two other issues that also do not accomplish anything reproductive).

Quoted from George Willson From a Biblical standpoint, it boils down to two references from the very beginning of Genesis in regards to the very, very first command the God gave mankind. Right after man was created, God said this in Genesis 1:28: "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.'"

Ok, I have a quick question about that part. You're saying (that if you believe in God and read the words of the Bible) that God pretty much believes men are, if you'll forgive my language, fucking useless?

Increase in number and subdue it. Men can't have kids. So, theoretically, if a ginormous sperm bank was created and then, for some reason, all men were killed off, God would be appeased? Artificial insemenation would basically become a requirement.

Makes me wonder how people believe that God is a man and is always portrayed that way (except of course in comedies).

EDIT:

(This is all from the Bible but I don't believe in it anyway, so don't hate me for it. Lol.)

One more thing about the Adam and Eve quote.

Eve wasn't first. There was someone named Lilith. Supposedly, God created Adam and Lilith at the same time. But, for that reason, she demanded to be equal to Adam. That pissed Adam off and he wasn't happy with him anymore. So, he had God kill her. After that, she became some demon-spirit thing that killed kids in their sleep.

Ironically, there's a song I really like that's all about that story, if you listen to the lyrics.

And, no, this mini-story telling didn't come from the song. I just noticed it in the song after listening to the lyrics.

The song, if anyone is interested is "The Night" by Morphine. And, yes, this is technically still on topic. Responding to the Admin who posted right above me. =)

Quoted from ReaperCreeper In other words "I'm out of bullets, so stop shooting at me" Chris's question only requires a Yes or No answer and you've purposely avoided it out of fear of ruining your credibility and being seen as, shall we say, "morally-bankrupt"?

Chris Ried seem unable to appreciate the irony of his question, even when it's pointed out to him. He, as a homosexual man, is someone who engages in what most societies, past and present see as being morally bankrupt and low. Today, a number of societies have had homosexuality marketed to them in such a way that it's now widely "accepted". He, seeing homosexuals as being "oppressed", draws no corellation to other sexual fringes, on the mere basis that they have not yet been accepted.

Yes, that's what I take from his question, and response.

My opinion on homosexuality should be neither here nor there for him. I don't see homosexuality in the same light he does.

Did Chris say he was gay? I think he's married and has kids...

If he didn't say he is gay I think this thread has gone way too far when we start to assume or label other members.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Did Chris say he was gay? I think he's married and has kids... If he didn't say he is gay I think this thread has gone way too far when we start to assume or label other members.

If he's not, my mistake in that assumption.

Jesus fucking christ, this is so stupid and it should be so simple.  EVERYONE has the right for happiness, if being gay is a choice or not who cares, if it makes them happy who is any douchebag to judge them or deny them their happiness and equal as long as they are not causing physical harm to anyone, if you don't like it, don't look at it, simple, i swear to christ i think some people need to pull their stick out of their ass an accept people for who they are, if you can't do that then you have some serious emotional and mental problems.

Wow, this thread ballooned since 9pm English!

6 pages to 13!

The only thing I really wanted to pick up on was Dressel's Q re: what actually bothers people about PDAs from gay men. Also, why is there a chasm between what feelings that evokes and that of lesbians? No discernible reason was provided, and this speaks volumes - perhaps 'cos there - quite frankly - is nothing wrong with it. Cornetto eloquently listed the oppression that has been felt by gay men for long swathes of history, and decadence's articulation of plausible explanations for straight men to be offended - by way of an actual scientific exploration - was most satisfying to me from a writing perspective.

Parades - what's the big deal?

Jeff, I know you were talking about it being "in your face", but in principle, is a parade any different from your irregular proclamations of having a girlfriend? Sure, there is a wealth of difference in scale, but ultimately both are proud declarations of how a person feels - what's wrong with that? You quite clearly stated that you have no problems with gay men, so that's cool. I think your comments appeared quite gruff, and no nonsense, which is how you are as a person, so naturally this issue filtered through that lens is likely to yield that type of response. That's cool, 'cos you appear to have no bigotry.

Jammin, well, I think I see what your point is - you are asking why society categorises homosexuality, young/old and incestuous behaviour in different ways, right? That's a valid question, but I think you inherently believe homosexuality to be wrong, which colours your question. Therefore you are lumping all of those behaviours into some level of perversion of the normal - heterosexuality. Why is heterosexuality the norm, or viewed as the norm? I guess it's down to reproduction, but we're hardly an endangered species. Martin Rees - a superb Cosmologist - gave a recent lecture in London where he suggested the worldwide population could reach 9 billion by 2050 - we need to reduce the population, so why is homosexuality wrong? To me, that growth in population suggests there is no natural evolution in place to determine homosexuality wrong.

My personal stance is that consent and welfare should permeate all levels of this discussion. Consensual sex between men/men or women/women is something that cannot be questioned aside from a level of bigotry or religious musing, IMO. I know others disagree, but I have never seen a compelling argument as to why.

Finally, I have to agree with Cornetto that pairing up homosexuality and that of paedophiles is not a fair comparison. Sure, the point Jammin made was that we have two historically persecuted groups - so one must now be accepted 'cos it's marketed better. I'm sorry, I am going to have to call bullshit on that - I would suggest it's down to humans evolving, and finding it increasingly difficult to rationalise persecution against two proponents of love. Love is beautiful thing, whether it be between men/women, men/men or women/women - there would appear to be a deficit of love in a wider societal context, so why demonise it based on who the proponents are - that's my opinion.

The age of consent and its complexities as to what constitutes a loving relationship in that realm would need a thesis, 'cos it's far too large an area to be carved up on a message board.

Andrew

Quoted from The boy who could fly Jesus fucking christ, this is so stupid and it should be so simple.  EVERYONE has the right for happiness, if being gay is a choice or not who cares, if it makes them happy who is any douchebag to judge them or deny them their happiness and equal as long as they are not causing physical harm to anyone, if you don't like it, don't look at it, simple, i swear to christ i think some people need to pull their stick out of their ass an accept people for who they are, if you can't do that then you have some serious emotional and mental problems.

Clearly the best post of this thread.  Simple, brilliant, absolutely true, and used F***ng, douche and ass!  Nicely done sir!

Everyone has their own opinions here and no one should doubt that.  But I'm still extremely shocked that no one seems to have a problem with what Matt Chisholm had to say last night.  Here are his words in regrads to beasitality and incest being completely acceptable...

"As long as the man having sex with his mother or adult daughter have their permission, there is no problem the way I see it. Same thing with a woman who has her German Shepherd have sex with her. Social constructs keep incest and beastiality as off-limits taboo, the way homosexuality was one hundred of two hundred years ago. Maybe over time, this will also change."

How can anyone not find this to be crazy and downright wrong?

I think most of us do Jeff.

Quoted from JamminGirl This happened to homosexuals only? How about paedophiles, are they being thrown in jail too for something they can claim to be born with, much like homosexuals? Aren't paedophiles shunned and deemed "sick" by mental doctors and society at large? That teacher, Mary Kay Letourneau, wasn't she imprisoned? Do you see paedophiles as being "oppressed" as well? Afterall, paedophilia, much like heterosexuality and homosexuality, is a preference, no?

To put homosexuals and paedophiles in the same argument is nuts.  

Paedophiles should be shot.  But that's another argument.

This thread has officially jumped the shark.


And then apparently had sex with it too.

I disagree with what Matt said about bestiality.  That is wrong, and it's wrong because the animal can't consent.  If adults want to engage in incest, that's their business.  The same with polygamy.  As long as everyone involved is ok with it, it's no one eles concern.

Quoted from dresseme This thread has officially jumped the shark. And then apparently had sex with it too.

Ha ha - very good, Matt.

What exactly are we hoping to achieve with this discussion? None of us are lawmakers (thankfully, in some cases!). This isn't really a debate, because there will be no outcome. We all have our opinions. Clearly, from what I have read, nobody is going to be swayed by any argument, no matter whether it's logically sound and well expressed, or not.

Homosexuality is real. People are gay. They have the right to be gay, and people have the right to disapprove. It's that simple. Personally? I don't give two hoots about whether someone considers themselves 'gay' or not. Sexual orientation is only one facet of someone's personality, after all. But it must be remembered that while X has the right to be gay, and to not be ashamed of that fact, Y has just as much right to disapprove, and to vocalise that disapproval. Freedom of opinion and the ability to express that opinion is as much of a basic human right as the right to choose whether you have sex with consenting men, or consenting women.

(I want to make the point that I specifically said 'expressing disapproval', before I'm accused of condoning oppression or violence towards homosexuals. Saying 'I think that's wrong' is one thing. Beating someone up because you think it's wrong, or encouraging others to do so, is quite another.)

I may regret getting involved in this discussion, but that, I think, is that. And by the way, since when could a German Shepherd give consent?