Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Will the legislation of homosexuality be a cause for concern in the future?

Announcements Posted on
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    My s*** computer just deleted half the points I made, so apologies if this seems rambling, I'm trying to remember what I wrote initially.
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    "Should we obey God or Man?" Acts 5, and references to oppression being wrong, are part of the justification used for disobeying laws or society sometimes. I'd prefer to be dead than a slave to any worldly government. I'd also prefer to be in jail than obey something I found to be seriously wrong and unjust. Fortunately there are not many unjust laws that affect me in this country. I was referring to social mores and folkways as well as law though; many a time believers have put their conscience above these, and paid the price of society's disapproval in some way without the involvement of the legal system.
    Yes, oppression is wrong, you do not need to believe the Bible to see that; however, from your attitudes it would certainly seem that you would support an oppression, or certainly semi-oppressive rules towards, of gay people. Surely this is inherently wrong given your interpretation of the Bible?

    It is not only 'believers' who have had to suffer society's disapproval; staying on the topic, homosexuals have had to deal with society's disapproval for hundreds of years. However, the circumstances for the two are entirely different; whereas homosexuals were and are still shunned for something they did not choose and cannot change, beliefs can be chosen, thus although 'believers' may paint themselves as martyrs of society, they have to a large extent made their own bed and must consequently lie in it. For the most part, if a 'believer' were to earn society's disapproval, it would be because their beliefs or views did not follow the majority view. Tyranny of the majority is not a good thing, and sometimes, admittedly, religious people can be (though rarely in my opinion) expressing the voice of reason, but most of the time, it is the majority view because the majority has realised it is the most reasonable, most acceptable and most evolved viewpoint to take.

    I know it is easy to say about the Victorian system. There is a scripture for that too, saying that if you claim "I will lay down my life for my neighbour" but will not make small sacrifices on quotidian matters you're dissimulating. I think it would have been worth getting into trouble over myself. My dad did actually help me circumvent the present far less Draconian film censorship system, without breaking the law or causing a public scandal (an example of when not living by an aspect of "society" isn't a sin.) Unlike in cinemas, parents have legal discretion to buy any DVD or video game for their children as it is not "supply in the course of a business." As he believed the French film classification system was truer to human nature without the unnecessary constriction of the BBFC, he bought me a whole series of "18" certificate DVDs and two that had been banned here when I was 12-13. Nearly all were rated 12 in France. All were serious dramatic works with explicit sexual representations. The BBFC classify according to majority UK public opinion as reflected in polls they carry out every so many years; we do not share their opinions so in our house we did things differently. Unless my future wife strongly objects I intend to do the same with my children, but be strict on other issues. I do not mind children seeing two grown-ups simulating sex in a Bertolucci, Fellini or Catherine Breillat. Fiction is fiction, and they could see the beauty of love and the human form as counterpoint to positive injunctions (be chaste, dress modestly) while still knowing the physical and spiritual consequences of "experimenting" with sex in their own lives.
    Circumventing censorship laws in modern day Britain (which is, let's face it, p*** easy to do) is not quite the same thing as obtaining officially prohibited works of art on the black market, which would have been difficult to obtain, very expensive and almost certainly land you a much harsher punishment than the modern day example, where there is no need to go through the black market. I am not questioning whether you think it would have been worth getting into serious trouble over, I am merely questioning whether you would actually have done so. I think you are looking at that issue with a 21st century mindset, thus while you think you would have done one thing, had you been brought up in that society, governed by those laws, raised with the Victorian mindset, would you have actually done the same. You may proclaim that you would all you want, but I will retain an element of doubt.

    But aren't these films a glorification of sex? I have seen similar films, that can capture the beauty of sex on camera, and personally I think these are far more likely to glorify sex and encourage an interest in it than cold, emotionless and poorly acted porn. Also, the problem with film/TV/video game censorship laws in any country is that they generalise. Some may be mature enough to handle films classified as 18 at a younger age, there is no arguing that, but there are also others who won't be, thus the film classification industry are covering their backs and playing it safe. In reality, it is so easy to circumvent the film classification rules anyway that they don't actually make life much more difficult. It may get to when you have kids that you decide, whatever your original plans, they are not as mature as you were at the age and are thus unready to view such content; blanket generalisations on age aren't possible, as everyone matures at different rates.

    I would definitely mind them being given the sex/puberty leaflets produced by the FPA, a pro-abortion and anti-abstinence group or taught that the Bible was "outdated" or going to sex education classes which taught "respect for self and others, and responsibility for actions" as the moral framework without reference to the classical virtues or the supremacy of heterosexual marriage among models of intimate human relations. The fact that so much SRE practice in schools is inappropriate from my moral perspective leads me to believe it should simply be taught at home by parents, tout de suite, and schools should keep to less sensitive matter.
    But by attempting to instil the idea of heterosexual supremacy, you are about as far from respecting others as it is possible to get; the love, and by that idea the respect, of others is an inherent idea of the Bible, so surely you are failing in your Christian duty? We teach children that respect for yourself and for others, and taking responsibility for your actions, are important in other areas of their lives, so why would we not teach them the same in relation to sex and sexual relationships.

    The problem with relying on parents to provide the necessary sex ed for their children is the varying levels of information that will be passed on by the parents. Some parents will be able to explain everything to their kids in a suitable manner, answering any questions and easing any doubts, yet some parents will not be able to explain it in a satisfactory way and some parents will refuse to discuss it with their children at all; thus it is in the best interests of the children to provide a good grounding in sex ed, for both heterosexual and homosexual teens, so that they are not heading out into the world completely ignorant of the consequences of sex, how to have it safely etc.

    I find it upsetting that you support the deliberate killing of an unborn child just because the parents aren't ready to be a mum and dad. This is what adoption or extended family support is for. Wantedness does not determine worth, all children are valuable in God's sight; quality of life arguments are never acceptable when intentionally undermining the sanctity of life. You place far more import than me on the concept of "equality" as well. I think that it is natural that most, but not all, people who wish to be leaders in business, finance and politics are male and that many women prefer part-time work so they can spend time with their families; in fact a lot of women would ultimately prefer to opt for motherhood in lieu of gainful employment but in this age of inflation, two-income mortgages, rising fuel and the like that is not a workable option for many ladies. I have absolutely NOTHING against female leaders, all the way up to prime ministers and multinational CEOs, but I do not agree that the propensity to lead and devote oneself wholly or mainly to a career is equitably distributed between the sexes and so quotas are to my mind more likely to saddle women with unwanted responsibilities while justifiably provoking men to anger; inflaming gender war is the last thing society needs.
    Let me just be clear here; I do not support woment just getting abortions willy nilly because they didn't use a condom or forgot to take the pill, that isn't what it is for. When I talk about the parents not being ready, I'm not referring to the feeling that all prospective parents get about not feeling ready before the birth of their kid, but parents who know that they will not be able to provide a good life for that child, perhaps because of the situation they are living in, or because they are too young; who know that they will be bringing that child into a bad situation, or perhaps know they will not be necessarily be able to stay healthy enough during their pregnancy to have a healthy baby that could be given to the adoptive agencies. In these cases, I feel it is more responsible to not bring that baby into the world, for parents have a duty of care towards their kids, and if it is clear that the baby would suffer if it was brought into those circumstances, banning abortions is cruel when it is clear abortion is the more sensible option. The amount abuse cases that stem from parents who were not ready, i.e. not in an appropriate place in their life to be able to look after the child correctly, mostly cases of neglect, is horrible, so if abortion will reduce that, then yes, it should be freely available.

    Adoption is not the magical solution to everything. Many, many children already get lost in the care system, shunted from care home to foster home and back again until they are 18 and can leave the system. Yes, there are some success stories, where children are adopted by fantastic families, but these successes are in the minority; not every child gets adopted, not every child even gets fostered as there are not enough foster parents for all the kids ending up in the care system. Care workers are already overworked and overstretched, one can see this in looking at the fatal errors of the system over the past few years to see this, so adding to their burden by bringing yet more children into the care system would only increase the problems.

    Of course equality is important to me; I'm female and I'm gay, are you really that surprised? It is wrong to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their gender/skin colour/sexual orientation/religion etc, and I think equality should be one of the main goals of society. It is because of this equality that you should not be discriminated against, despite having strong religious beliefs in an increasingly secular environment. You're right, gender warfare is the last thing we need, yet you're straying dangerously close to inciting one with your stereotyping. Men have traditionally dominated business/politics etc because these were areas closed off to women, thus the historical male domination has led society to believe that this is 'natural' because men are better suited to that kind of work. That is complete b****cks, and gender stereotyping is not a good thing. Your views on women in the workplace are fairly poor, in my opinion, though let's leave that alone for it is not the point of this thread.

    God did not create sodomy or other perversity; the predispositions to do it would come from the flesh (the sin-nature, so ultimately from the satanic rebellion at the beginning) and He made penises and anuses but did not intend for one to be inserted into the other. Man took the bodies designed for us and chose to misuse them.
    You cannot claim that God created everything and then claim that he didn't - it's one or the other, not both. If you believe God was the creator of everything, then it stands to reason that God created all sins, created the predisposition of certain people to these 'sins' and enable their continuation throughout history. If God didn't intend the penis to go into the anus, then why is the latter the right size to accomodate the former and why is the male g-spot located in the anus? Are you saying God made a mistake? Also, you do realise sodomy doesn't relate solely to homosexuality, yes?

    Oh- and as a faithful Christian I will NOT just subordinate the Bible to modern views. I have already said I believe that it is eternal unchangeable ethical truth on matters such as preserving life, the family and sexual ethics. These cannot be adapted to fit a non-believing majority under any circumstances whatsoever. As I also said previously, we now live in a de facto secular society. I cannot expect society at large to be organised by the Bible, but nor will my moral compass as a Bible believer be altered, and so if we are in a post-Christian society, of course I will be proudly behind the times !
    And as a dedicated lesbian, I will not let a Bible-believer's views dictate how I should be allowed to live.

    Quick question: what are you going to do if your son/daughter is gay?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    You cannot claim that God created everything and then claim that he didn't - it's one or the other, not both. If you believe God was the creator of everything, then it stands to reason that God created all sins, created the predisposition of certain people to these 'sins' and enable their continuation throughout history. If God didn't intend the penis to go into the anus, then why is the latter the right size to accomodate the former and why is the male g-spot located in the anus? Are you saying God made a mistake?
    I may not be the one you're talking too, but it's just something I want to mention.

    God gave humans free will to act, which is why some choose sin. He didn't create the sins; didn't create murder, rape, child abuse, lying, or whatever sins you may think of that someone can do.

    How is it His fault that us as humans see that a penis can fit into the anus and thus choose to do that? He didn't create it for that purpose, but it's how human free will have chosen to act with it.
    >John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    He doesn't make you believe, but gives you the free will to believe and act how you like.

    Whether it be against his word, stick things where they shouldn't go, kill people, whatever it may be. Look at Viagra, that was made with the purpose of treating the heart, but look at the side effect thaat has proved beneficial. It wasn't made with that in mind.


    >Revelation 22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
    Doesn't force people to be saved, basically. Doesn't force people to do anything, it's left up to them how they do and use things.

    For man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, that required free will. I partly agree with what Augustine has to say, that the fruit was not evil (since everything that God made was good, could mean fit for purpose, whatever), but from Adam and Eve who disobeyed and ate from that tree (out of free will) disrupted the created world, introducing sin.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoziHQ)
    The Buggery Act 1553 firstly outlawed homosexuality, making it punishable by hanging. It was only in 1861 where the death penalty was removed, and in 1967 where homosexuality was decriminalised. Homosexual couples now have the right to sexual relations, and even marriage. It's taken more than 450 years for such to take place, but such legislation is a cause for concern.

    Some say that incest is love, but as adduced through our law, this is simply disgusting and a criminal offence. Some people think that polygamous marriage is acceptable as well, but again as adduced through the law, it's not ( it's illegal, unless you're married outside of the UK where it is legal).
    The strong dislike of incest within the TSR community, and the examples mentioned above just prove that christian ethics still have a sound influence on not only our society, but more importantly our constitution.

    However, this influence is lessening year by year by year. The UK is deciding for itself what is moral and what is immoral. If the latter wasn't true, homosexuality would be illegal along with incest as well.And as culture is subject to change, and morality now is becoming more based on the opinions of culture, what society may find disgusting now may be perfectly fine in 450 years.

    Let's fast forward 450 years. What will the UK constitution allow? Will incest be legal? Will polygamous marriage be legal? Will zoophilia be legal?
    We know through economics that the world doesn't have enough resources to sustain our booming population for another 450 years. However, let's just say that it will.

    Will the legislation of homosexuality be a cause for concern in the future?
    Comments regarding incest & polygamy & zoophilia etc have no relevance to this specific discussion. If you want a discussion about the effects of homosexuality you need to specifically limit your comments to that area. So do you have any arguments?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xæthon)
    I may not be the one you're talking too, but it's just something I want to mention.

    God gave humans free will to act, which is why some choose sin. He didn't create the sins; didn't create murder, rape, child abuse, lying, or whatever sins you may think of that someone can do.

    How is it His fault that us as humans see that a penis can fit into the anus and thus choose to do that? He didn't create it for that purpose, but it's how human free will have chosen to act with it.
    >John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    He doesn't make you believe, but gives you the free will to believe and act how you like.

    Whether it be against his word, stick things where they shouldn't go, kill people, whatever it may be. Look at Viagra, that was made with the purpose of treating the heart, but look at the side effect thaat has proved beneficial. It wasn't made with that in mind.


    >Revelation 22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
    Doesn't force people to be saved, basically. Doesn't force people to do anything, it's left up to them how they do and use things.

    For man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, that required free will. I partly agree with what Augustine has to say, that the fruit was not evil (since everything that God made was good, could mean fit for purpose, whatever), but from Adam and Eve who disobeyed and ate from that tree (out of free will) disrupted the created world, introducing sin.
    But god, being all-knowing, would have known the paths people will take before they made them, thus removing any freedom from the process. If it is known beforehand by an omniscient being (whose knowledge cannot be contravened by definition) that a specific route will be taken, there's absolutely no way that any other route could be taken.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoziHQ)

    Some say that incest is love, but as adduced through our law, this is simply disgusting and a criminal offence. Some people think that polygamous marriage is acceptable as well, but again as adduced through the law, it's not ( it's illegal, unless you're married outside of the UK where it is legal).
    The strong dislike of incest within the TSR community, and the examples mentioned above just prove that christian ethics still have a sound influence on not only our society, but more importantly our constitution.

    However, this influence is lessening year by year by year. The UK is deciding for itself what is moral and what is immoral. If the latter wasn't true, homosexuality would be illegal along with incest as well.And as culture is subject to change, and morality now is becoming more based on the opinions of culture, what society may find disgusting now may be perfectly fine in 450 years.

    Let's fast forward 450 years. What will the UK constitution allow? Will incest be legal? Will polygamous marriage be legal? Will zoophilia be legal?
    We know through economics that the world doesn't have enough resources to sustain our booming population for another 450 years. However, let's just say that it will.

    Will the legislation of homosexuality be a cause for concern in the future?
    I'm confused- there seem to be many outspoken anti-same-sex people out there would calming to be so on the grounds of there religion ( cos all gays are godless heathen and obviously no loving compassionate god could love some who falls in love with some one who happens to be of the same gender ) they all seem to think they have the moral high ground and that homosexual's are all some how perverts out to corrupt the child by committing that gross act of holding hands or declaring there love in a ceremony - and yet it's these same out spoken people who can't have a conversation about gay marriage with out referring to sexual perversion, it is beyond me how it can be consider a religious value to imply gay people are or are in support of pedophilia, zoophilia or incest.

    Oh and for the record there are many places in the world where they find the idea of a nuclear family dysfunctional and instead opt for polygamous ones instead believing they provide a more stable home - ironically theses immoral places also don't believe in homosexuality - quick don't believe in it and it won't be real! many place have had same sex marriage for a while now - like sweden which is yet to fall into social turmoil, see an increase in pedophilia, zoophilia or incest or to be swallowed up by hell.

    the bottom line is this, if you don't like same sex marriages, that's fine - don't be in one
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ScheduleII)
    *bigger sigh* Another day, another idiot using the word "outdated" to describe an aspect of morality when unlike fashion or sushi, morality CANNOT go out of date.

    And Tommy- I have already said that I interpret Romans 1:22-30 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, along with Jude, to prohibit homosexuality. If you dispute the meaning of those words (some scholars do) or you don't think they are enough, then fine. But DO NOT accuse me of "not being explicit enough". I have told you exactly which Scriptures I base my view of the sinfulness of homosexuality on.

    It isn't my fault if they are not good enough for you.
    Sorry i'm confused again, why is the church against same-sex marriage again? these verses take only about men having sex with men, and says nothing about women falling in love with other women. Therefor logical the church should support same sex marriage for women as the bible only say male homosexuality is wrong and says nothing about women sleep with other women - sure if homosexuality was as depraved as the church make out they wouldn't be excluding women from the chance to be spiritual pure by allowing us to think it's not sinful to sleep with each other

    - oh well guess i just have to keep dating with beautiful women cause i can't believe female same-sex relationships are wrong because the bible doesn't tell they are, still at least I'll have fun doing it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This sort of topic generates intense debate between the religious and non-religious people.
    It's understandable that some people would like to practice their sexuality without been discriminated, by the rest of the society. it's equally understandably that some people object to it.
    However i think people should keep their sexuality to them selves and practice it behind the scenes.
    Homosexuality was once a criminal offence now it's no longer in fact same sex couples can now marry, which in my opinion isn't right. Some might disagree with me. However i would say if we as humans were to sustain such population growth then we have to remain heterosexuals, to prevent population decline.

    What is next after the state legalises same sex marriage? Marrying to your pet? That is the view of some people so you can imagine where this may lead to.

    May god guide us in to the right path.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoziHQ)
    The Buggery Act 1553 firstly outlawed homosexuality, making it punishable by hanging. It was only in 1861 where the death penalty was removed, and in 1967 where homosexuality was decriminalised. Homosexual couples now have the right to sexual relations, and even marriage. It's taken more than 450 years for such to take place, but such legislation is a cause for concern.

    Some say that incest is love, but as adduced through our law, this is simply disgusting and a criminal offence. Some people think that polygamous marriage is acceptable as well, but again as adduced through the law, it's not ( it's illegal, unless you're married outside of the UK where it is legal).
    The strong dislike of incest within the TSR community, and the examples mentioned above just prove that christian ethics still have a sound influence on not only our society, but more importantly our constitution.

    However, this influence is lessening year by year by year. The UK is deciding for itself what is moral and what is immoral. If the latter wasn't true, homosexuality would be illegal along with incest as well.And as culture is subject to change, and morality now is becoming more based on the opinions of culture, what society may find disgusting now may be perfectly fine in 450 years.

    Let's fast forward 450 years. What will the UK constitution allow? Will incest be legal? Will polygamous marriage be legal? Will zoophilia be legal?
    We know through economics that the world doesn't have enough resources to sustain our booming population for another 450 years. However, let's just say that it will.

    Will the legislation of homosexuality be a cause for concern in the future?
    Buggery lol
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Whatever laws the government put up, gays gonna be gay. Maybe in 450 years people will realise that some people are gay, this has and always will be the case, it's not hurting anyone so let it be.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mustafe)
    This sort of topic generates intense debate between the religious and non-religious people.
    It's understandable that some people would like to practice their sexuality without been discriminated, by the rest of the society. it's equally understandably that some people object to it.
    However i think people should keep their sexuality to them selves and practice it behind the scenes.
    Homosexuality was once a criminal offence now it's no longer in fact same sex couples can now marry, which in my opinion isn't right. Some might disagree with me. However i would say if we as humans were to sustain such population growth then we have to remain heterosexuals, to prevent population decline.

    What is next after the state legalises same sex marriage? Marrying to your pet? That is the view of some people so you can imagine where this may lead to.

    May god guide us in to the right path.
    I am more than happy to keep my sexuality private, but holding hands isn't sexual neither is going on a date or getting married if these things are a sexual practice then heterosexuals should also be required to only fall in love get married and hold hands in private,

    i'm not asking you to watch me have perform sex acts in public just to not imply i'm immoral for falling in love. why should i act like i'm a shamed of my love or pass up on the chance or being in love, getting married , starting a family, buying that little house in the county because the person i might fall in love with, who would be the only person that i would want to to do any of those things with, might be a women and some else might feel uncomfortable about us being allowed to do those things without getting arrested.

    and by the way the remark about pet marriage is extremely offensive and ridiculous are statistically speaking most zoophiles are heterosexuals.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mustafe)
    This sort of topic generates intense debate between the religious and non-religious people.
    It's understandable that some people would like to practice their sexuality without been discriminated, by the rest of the society. it's equally understandably that some people object to it.
    However i think people should keep their sexuality to them selves and practice it behind the scenes.
    Homosexuality was once a criminal offence now it's no longer in fact same sex couples can now marry, which in my opinion isn't right. Some might disagree with me. However i would say if we as humans were to sustain such population growth then we have to remain heterosexuals, to prevent population decline.

    What is next after the state legalises same sex marriage? Marrying to your pet? That is the view of some people so you can imagine where this may lead to.

    May god guide us in to the right path.
    I fail to see how it is "understandable" to be against same-sex marriage. I have yet to see an argument against it that is valid. But besides that your post doesn't make much sense.

    You think people should keep their sexuality to themselves, which is why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Now...logically you would also then be obligated to then say that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Because somehow marriage is publicizing your sexuality...

    You also say that by allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow the population is going to decline....except...same-sex couples can adopt, or have children via IVF or surrogacy...and they can already do this...I don't really see a drop in the population. Also...the earth's population is getting far too big for the planet to sustain...so I don't see how lowering the population is 'bad'.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    yes
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
    I fail to see how it is "understandable" to be against same-sex marriage. I have yet to see an argument against it that is valid. But besides that your post doesn't make much sense.

    You think people should keep their sexuality to themselves, which is why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. Now...logically you would also then be obligated to then say that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Because somehow marriage is publicizing your sexuality...

    You also say that by allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow the population is going to decline....except...same-sex couples can adopt, or have children via IVF or surrogacy...and they can already do this...I don't really see a drop in the population. Also...the earth's population is getting far too big for the planet to sustain...so I don't see how lowering the population is 'bad'.
    Marriage is between a man and women, and sex is between a man and women nothing more nothing less and the state has no right to redefine that status.
    The only logical thing i can think of is someone having a male reproductive system but psychologically. It's immoral really in my opinion.
    I am sorry if you found my earlier comment about having sex with pet.
    It think at the end of the day, it's really up to the individuals to do what they like with their lives regardless of what anyone thinks of it, god knows what he will do, so humans may actually not have much say about it.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mustafe)
    Marriage is between a man and women, and sex is between a man and women nothing more nothing less and the state has no right to redefine that status.
    The only logical thing i can think of is someone having a male reproductive system but psychologically. It's immoral really in my opinion.
    I am sorry if you found my earlier comment about having sex with pet.
    It think at the end of the day, it's really up to the individuals to do what they like with their lives regardless of what anyone thinks of it, god knows what he will do, so humans may actually not have much say about it.
    Um...The state has every right to "redefine" marriage as it sees fit. Marriage has been redefined time and time again since it's creation. The state has no right to force churches to recognizes certain marriages but that's not what people are talking about when they are talking about same-sex marriage. As far as you thinking its immoral...I'm confident in saying that you probably think so because of religious reasons but that is not something to base a law or civil institution off of.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mustafe)
    sex is between a man and women nothing more nothing less
    this doesn't make sense if sex is only between a man and a woman what do you think same-sex couples are doing when they have sex?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Homosexuality - Doesnt harm anyone
    Incest - Can harm future children
    Zoophilia - Can harm animals (and other issues)

    Dont see the comparison.

    P.s. we dont know anything about how our resources can handle future growth. Given estimates seem to be between 10 and 13 billion it is very possible that given the advance in the past 100 years, future advancements will allow us to easily sustain that population. Doesnt even take into account the fact we could sustain many more people now, resources isnt ever the problem, its the distribution of the resources that is the problem.

    P.s.s Homosexuality itself can help future population problems, if you needed another reason to 'accept it'

    Just to say, you specific incest, not a non-sexual relationship, in which case the argument would differ
    I have nothing against most of what you said except the first line, whereby the whole aids thing I'm not fully sure on how it started/spread but I'm fairly certain it was the gay community spread it? something about an american drugs company? i really don't know the facts, but i would be interested to know... so Yes it can harm people if that's the case, if I'm wrong please say so as I'd rather be sure on the matter, but I would like proof
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xæthon)
    I may not be the one you're talking too, but it's just something I want to mention.

    God gave humans free will to act, which is why some choose sin. He didn't create the sins; didn't create murder, rape, child abuse, lying, or whatever sins you may think of that someone can do.

    How is it His fault that us as humans see that a penis can fit into the anus and thus choose to do that? He didn't create it for that purpose, but it's how human free will have chosen to act with it.
    >John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    He doesn't make you believe, but gives you the free will to believe and act how you like.

    Whether it be against his word, stick things where they shouldn't go, kill people, whatever it may be. Look at Viagra, that was made with the purpose of treating the heart, but look at the side effect thaat has proved beneficial. It wasn't made with that in mind.


    >Revelation 22:17 - And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
    Doesn't force people to be saved, basically. Doesn't force people to do anything, it's left up to them how they do and use things.

    For man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, that required free will. I partly agree with what Augustine has to say, that the fruit was not evil (since everything that God made was good, could mean fit for purpose, whatever), but from Adam and Eve who disobeyed and ate from that tree (out of free will) disrupted the created world, introducing sin.
    If God created everything, then he created everything, not just the good bits. Human beings may 'sin' through free will, but God created the concept of free will and thus the ability of humans to sin; he created everyone, therefore he created those predisposed to sinning; he created the concept of sinning, for he created everything, and thus the individual sins that can be done. If God is the creator of everything, as you purport, then it stands to reason that God did indeed create sin and those likely to participate in it. If he didn't create it, then it stands to reason that God is not the ultimate absolute and final power you claim he is, for there is something else capable of creation. If God didn't intend the penis to go into the anus, then he would not have made the latter the right size to accomodate the former; unless, of course, you are suggesting God made a mistake?

    Also, Christianity strongly defends the idea of God's omniscience, therefore the argument that God did not know what humans would do with the free will he gave them, which allows them to sin, is false and ridiculous; the very concept of not knowing contradicts the idea that God is omniscient. Either he is or he isn't; if God did not know what humans would do, he is not omniscient and thus not as mighty as is made out. However, if he is truly omniscient and consequently knew what the results of him giving humans free will would be, could see that the human race would sin, then he chose to allow that to happen, thus it is because of God's decisions to allow it to remain that there is sin in the world.

    You cannot have it both ways: either God is the creator of everything or he isn't; either God is omniscient or he isn't. You cannot hold one line of argument when it suits, yet change it when you come across a point you don't like.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pshewitt1)
    I have nothing against most of what you said except the first line, whereby the whole aids thing I'm not fully sure on how it started/spread but I'm fairly certain it was the gay community spread it? something about an american drugs company? i really don't know the facts, but i would be interested to know... so Yes it can harm people if that's the case, if I'm wrong please say so as I'd rather be sure on the matter, but I would like proof
    firstly you can't catch aids, but you can catch hiv and straight people get HIV too, hiv began in primates and jump species to humans due to it beginning hunted, butchered and eaten, there is no reason too suspect that the unters who first contracted it were gay,human to human transmission can happen during sex, but can be prevent through use of condoms, and through regular std testing if people are having or have had more than one partner.

    transmission is more like to occur if the person has anal sex, this is true regardless of whether the recipient is male or female and in addition to this contrary to popular belief not all gay man like anal sex many dislike it as much as many women and straight men dislike begin sodomized.

    many women particularly members or religions were condom are not acceptable find themselfs suffering from std's due to unfaithful husbands,many heterosexual people contract it through sex, or in some cases drug use, and very rarely contaminated blood transfusion ( not usually in the west) or accidental exposer to infected body fluids.


    so while sex especially when it is unprotected and with multiple partners (not necessarily at the same time) no increase your chance of getting hiv this affects anyone having sex not just gay people.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mustafe)
    This sort of topic generates intense debate between the religious and non-religious people.
    It's understandable that some people would like to practice their sexuality without been discriminated, by the rest of the society. it's equally understandably that some people object to it.
    However i think people should keep their sexuality to them selves and practice it behind the scenes.
    Homosexuality was once a criminal offence now it's no longer in fact same sex couples can now marry, which in my opinion isn't right. Some might disagree with me. However i would say if we as humans were to sustain such population growth then we have to remain heterosexuals, to prevent population decline.

    What is next after the state legalises same sex marriage? Marrying to your pet? That is the view of some people so you can imagine where this may lead to.

    May god guide us in to the right path.
    How is it in any way understandable that some people discriminate against others? As Rand said previously, I have yet to see an argument explaining an reasonable motivation for opposing gay marriage. Is it understandable, then, that some people are racist, or that some people are horrible to disabled people? No, it is not, in much the same way it is not understandable that people discriminate against LGBT people.

    Also, we can't marry everywhere, we are still a LONG way away from achieving full marriage equality; you are confusing civil partnerships with marriage. And yes, because marrying an animal is clearly the same as marrying another human being, of course it's the only logical progression, idiot.

    Also, if anything, the world could do with slowing the rate of population growth, with the increasing strain on resources/land etc, and even if this wasn't the case a) there are more than enough straight people to keep pushing out babies and b) gay people can have kids too with the help of modern technology.

    (Original post by rac1)
    yes
    Gonna explain why?

    (Original post by mustafe)
    Marriage is between a man and women, and sex is between a man and women nothing more nothing less and the state has no right to redefine that status.
    The only logical thing i can think of is someone having a male reproductive system but psychologically. It's immoral really in my opinion.
    I am sorry if you found my earlier comment about having sex with pet.
    It think at the end of the day, it's really up to the individuals to do what they like with their lives regardless of what anyone thinks of it, god knows what he will do, so humans may actually not have much say about it.
    Erm, so what do you think two guys/two girls are doing when they have sex then, cos I'm pretty sure that is also sex!

    The state does have a right to redefine marriage whenever it sees fit too, for marriage has constantly been evolved and redefined by society. Marriage was an entirely secular institution, separate from religion before religion appropriated marriage. We do not have the right to force churches or religions to force churches to perform marriages they do not agree to, which is clearly a very fair position, but for civil marriages, the state has every right to redefine marriage.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pshewitt1)
    I have nothing against most of what you said except the first line, whereby the whole aids thing I'm not fully sure on how it started/spread but I'm fairly certain it was the gay community spread it? something about an american drugs company? i really don't know the facts, but i would be interested to know... so Yes it can harm people if that's the case, if I'm wrong please say so as I'd rather be sure on the matter, but I would like proof
    AIDS spread because people, straight and gay, contracted HIV through having unprotected sex. Though HIV is still largely associated with the gay male community, that is a misconception: in the UK in 2010, the majority of new HIV diagnoses were among the heterosexual population.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 12, 2012
New on TSR

What do you think of the BBC?

UK Parliament wants to hear your views

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.