The debate "Does being gay affect others lives in a bad way" was started by
April 26, 2018, 11:03 am.
By the way, devindel is disagreeing with this statement.
32 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 62 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Marcon posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, Najam1 posted 13 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Marcon, kashish and 30 visitors agree.
devindel, Nayana89, Nemiroff, historybuff, theoneandonlyDan, Slymcfly, Lennon13, DalePMay, Simonderp, Breeanna104, Argument_fightme and 51 visitors disagree.
I asked for an example but got none.
although i noticed people who dont respond usually end up making the same wrong statement a month or so later unadjusted
Marcon, that's not very likely to happen. Laws on sexual assault are very clear, and if a judge is found to be so biased, the consequences are serious. In states and cities where sexuality is added to the Civil Rights list of protected classes, heterosexuals are entitled to the same protections as homosexuals, just as White people are entitled to the same protections as Black people.
A sexual prefrence in ones mind dosen't affect anyone else.
as buff said you may as well have said gay people can negatively affect others by commiting any crime even non sex related.
also the assumption that liberals will just excuse straight up sexual assault based on the victims or perps identity is completely baseless (holding back stronger words). can you cite precedence of this happening or are you just repeating propaganda #realfakenews
that scenario has nothing to do with them being gay. a person pushing for a relationship with a non consenting person is bad regardless of their sexual orientation.
There is only one way gay people would affect others' lives in a bad way. If a gay person wants to have a same gender relationship with a nonconsenting person, then the person might be scared of them, or if they aren't scared they will bring it to the public court, and fail because the majority of the public attending voir dire would be liberals and would favor the LGBT person. Of course this is a rare scenario, but it still could occur.
Also, I was comparing homosexual men with female bees. Male bees do virtually nothing but reproduce, just like male black widow spiders. Female bees are, with the exception of the queens, infertile, and do chores about the colony.
Gay people don't despise their children. Don't be daft. Gay people being allowed to raise children has been an ongoing fight on the part of LGBTQ. I find the contradictory standards homophobes apply to homosexual people appalling.
And yeah, I compared us to ants. Because ants share relevant characteristics to us. The adults care dutifully for the juveniles, regardless of their ability to reproduce. Human beings are the same. If you're going to say our reproductive habits imply some spiritual state, then why does this criteria not apply to ants? Don't appeal to the human arrogance of seeing yourself as above one of the arguably most successful organisms on the planet.
Isn't it the Koran that says Solomon talked to ants, by the way?
You equate men to mere insects.
Satanic men who despise the presence of their own biological children are not male bees in a hive.
Maybe they are male black widow spiders in the future.
"So your allies can't hide behind fancy terms," he says, while hiding his assumptions behind fancy words.
By your logic, ants are being manipulated by evil barren spirits.
Yeah, theism suuure is the source of all morals in the world. Like stoning people to death because they can't have biological children.
Are ants satanic? Very few ants in the colony reproduce. Does their barreness make them "satanic?"
And what of recent biological techniques which allow homosexuals to reproduce with eachother using genetic recombination?
And again with the armchair psychology. Do you actually know homosexuals? Those with bad relationships with their mother usually have mothers who are homophobic and broke off contact with their son. Don't blame the victim, dude.
I know the terms you're referencing. Theological ones. They are a dishonest word game meant to confuse concepts via metaphor like trust and faith, love and codependency, or in this case, infertility and self destruction, which you both put under one obfuscatory label: "barren."
When I talk about homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality, I'm talking about real, practical distinctions. When you talk about barreness, you're using cult code to induce double think, ala 1984 or Scientology.
Let's break it down, so your little allies can't hide behind fancy words.
Rejecting all members of the opposite sex until reaching death as one of the barren.
That's a clear celebration for Satan himself.
I am going to use a few complicated terms now, but only a few.
There are men unwilling to accept even their own Mother in a basic parent platonic relationship, and have an even lower opinion with regards to accepting any of the remaining women as an actual spouse or life companion.
Homosexuality is caused by sadistic spirits?
I'm sorry, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis you're presenting. Its just as likely as the hypothesis that theism is caused by malevolent spirits and believers are doomed to hell. How can I make a wager? You can't appeal to the morality of theism, since theism is rife with cruelty. After all, you can't argue your position is self evidently moral when you need an unfalsifiable hypothesis to justify your position on homosexuality, yes?
Allah won't reveal some secrets to men on Earth. He won't let anyone stay on Earth who sees his face. He is acting in your best interest by hiding the sight of creatures too terrifying for your mortal flesh to fathom. Some of those creatures are going to hell, and your only possible interaction with them is Earth and judgement day, unless you love unfair sadistic brutes enough to live forever in hell with them.
If god punishes those who do the best they can to be good, moral people, then I guess no one good is getting into heaven.
Okay, so in other words, Allah is purposefully acting against humanity, putting moral accountability on us while, at the same time, depriving us of the ability to make informed, rational, ethical decisions?
Cool story. I'll continue wagering on what I can know, because its scientific epistemology that cured smallpox, not people who believe in supernatural veils.
The so called homosexuals slain by folks around the world have the spirit world as instigators and backers. They don't have bodies that belong to them, so they do not directly attack anyone.
As for Allah protecting me from them, it's his veil that prevents mankind from seeing both his face and the beings he created without flesh. How much trouble do you think I would get in for removing even one supernatural veil? They would tell him on me, and have more of a claim against my transgression than I have of theirs.
Okay, so now you're claiming homosexuals never get murdered by people, but by spirits. Aren't you essentially saying no human being has responsibility for their actions?
As for the threat, this sounds like you've been duped by a psychic scam. "Don't yell others the secret knowledge because X." Most cults come up with some reason the secret doctrines can't be known --- Scientology claimed that Dianetics, their first scripture, could not be read without extensive training, or it would drop you dead, for example.
But let's say you haven't. Does your god not protect you? And if you die to them trying to help mankind, will your god not take you up into paradise in reward for your good deed?
Do you not understand the danger of snitching on incorporeal creatures?
Only some of them are the enemy. They don't need cameras or the internet to communicate. Everytime, a so called homosexual is slain, they are behind it.
There is jealously over them not having flesh, so they see what men don't realize they see. Some do the killings out of a form of self-righteousness.
Najam1, who is threatening you with death? If this information is restricted, then you cannot claim Homosexuality is wrong, since Homosexuals, deprived of information with which to make a better choice, are not responsible for their mistakes. Instead, the punishment belongs on whoever is oppressing you with threat of execution.
If you can get your knowledge out before being killed, then I press upon you to consider the weight of the many lives destroyed because you kept silent. Would you not be a martyr for good if you spoke out?
I wouldn't say so, neveralone, but in general, I grant that most variations of Christianity are loose compared to Islam, specifically, but that's the price early Christianity had to make to appeal to the Greeks, who were already taken in by Zoroastrianism.
There's way too many secrets in that realm, under penalty of death I may not publicly reveal everything I know about the transdimensional parallel.
I would disagree. most would consider Christianity to be rather loose versus other Faith's.
Najam1, actually, you could convince me, you just need to demonstrate their existence. I'm an epistemologist before I am a naturalist.
Are you asserting sexuality is caused by spirits? If this is the case, why does sexuality correlate with biochemistry and neural architecture? By what mechanism does a spirit manipulate brain activity? Should we not see some betrayal of the laws of physics within the human brain or body if spirits are the source of such strong mental activity?
neveralone, I know, but I also know that this moral paradigm he's in is essentially the same.
Look my neighbor!
You don't believe in spirits, and I can't force you to, no more than I can force you to allow me to pour your wine on the ground, unless it's even cheaper than the usual cheap wine people of Earth are prone to drink.
There are male and female spirits, it is they who don't discriminate between a male or female human host. They are crooks,and I can detect them as a special ability. I spend more time battling a spirit on behalf of the actual human that lives there than I do battling that person. You actually need the opposite sex to fulfill certain parameters before the sequel to this lifetime begins.
And Jesus was the Jew who invited those who were being abused and neglected. Somebody lied on him, and twisted the events in order to dominate the sheep.
he's actually Muslim.
And trust me, I've been where you are. I was raised Christian, told homosexuality was a choice and a sin.
It's not. Homosexual acts don't harm people. Homosexual marriage doesn't ruin it for the rest of everyone. Focus your attention on the evils of pedophilia, spousal abuse, subjugation of women, rape victim blaming, all that stuff which ACTUALLY causes harm.
Or will that require realising your life is a lie? Trust me, not as scary as you think. Intellectual honesty and skepticism are moral imperatives. Do the right thing and think things through.
"How many women he boasts he can have sex with." Sounds like a lot of straight dudes I've met. Gay men are simply not interested in women. They want to marry other men, not women. Society forcing a homosexual man to marry a woman is society forcing a homosexual man to allow himself to be raped.
And no f***ing duh lesbians fight with twit husbands, because for society to force or pressure a lesbian into a marriage with a, man is RAPE. Does your god approve of rape? How can you claim to be moral and approve of rape?
Bisexual people, on the other hand, either are interested in both sexes, or existence themselves oscillating over time. You're taking some example of what evil you think all bisexual men do, and then applying that to homosexual men, and simply refusing to see you're equivocating under pretense of "not using pet names."
You are desperately reaching to twist the moral paradigm you know is true into something else. I can tell you have intuited that homosexuality isn't wrong, you're just trying to square that with your upbringing. Homosexuality isn't wrong. It doesn't cause, harm innately. Homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals as hurting people. Same with bisexuals and pansexuals.
If anyone is less likely to harm anyone than others, it's asexuals. Are you going to now prohibit sexuality altogether, abandon the false standard you're setting forth, or continue with this double standard?
faith. following a path I believe to be right. no one said it's easy.haha
jokes or cults? could u be more detailed please. haha man u got the wrong idea about Jesus. first he never shunned sinners he tried to help them and was constantly around them. yes he's charasmatic but he was God's son so I'm sure anyone who can heal u and do other miracles would be too.
I believe we have the scripture that shows several places that show in older debates. and who would be more of an expert than people who study it their entire lives?
Let me repeat: bisexuality and pansexuality are both different than homosexuality. This is not only a psychological fact, it's a biological fact. Not only is it biological, it is biochemical. These different sexualities have different chemical responses to the scent of other human beings. Heterosexual men respond to female hormones like homosexual men respond to men. You can't distort this by appealing to specifically social phenomena, ones you are responsible for forcing upon others.
Homosexual men would not have to try to deceive their "four wives" if they were allowed to marry who they want. Bisexual men would not have to pretend to be specifically heterosexual if they were allowed to say what they were without fear of social or even legal or lethal consequences, consequences that are tree CAUSE of injustice. These laws and prohibitions you desire CAUSE the activity you complain about. Do you understand?
Any type of homosexual man is a homosexual man. That means he is not allowed the 4 wives, no matter how many women he boasts that he can have sex with. The wives know the homosexual man, even if he lies.
In the same way lesbian women cannot be wives of a man, either they fight each other, or the husband catches them in the act of lesbian misconduct.
It's not their fault that they have to camoflauge in your society, and thus end up having a spouse they avoid romancing. We don't have that problem outside backwards Christian communities.
Let me draw a parallel to an issue we agree on: the civil rights of people who aren't Caucasian.
A white supremacist living in the South might make a similar moral error as you, forcing someone he seems of "lesser blood," via law, into desperate situations, where that person must break laws to survive, and then claim they deserve to have these harsh laws because observe: people of "lesser blood" commit more crimes.
See his error? The man committing crimes is doing so under durress: the one to blame for his behavior is not himself, but the one who is oppressing him, since that man's decisions are the ones that caused crimes to be committed.
No, it doesn't. People easily keep track of these categories. It's simple:
5 categories. How can you not keep track of just 5 categories? You want confusion? Try classifying proteins.
Your society forces homosexuals into marriage. Propositioning other men is not an attack, and if it is, then heterosexuality is wrong, too. Anything you claim a homosexual has done wrong, I can find that a heterosexual has done wrong, too. And most homosexuals, like most people, don't rape or step past the boundaries of others set forth before them.
The one confusing different categories for an agenda here is you. Just because you don't like the conclusions that cone with clarifying the details doesn't mean I'm "hiding people behind pet names."
That just confuses people. You cannot stop calling them a homosexual unless they give up rejecting the spouse of the opposite sex. They are rejecting their own spouse in order to have free time to attack any who has a spouse. Not going waste time hiding these people behind pet words.
Najam1, if a man is interested in both women and men, he's bisexual or pansexual, not homosexual. There are homosexual men in certain cultures and sub cultures, including Islamic culture, who are forced to pretend to be heterosexual for fear of their social standings, their means of living, or even lives.
If you know homosexuals who are lying about being so... It's probably because people like you stone them to death if they tell the truth. That means you are responsible for their dishonesty, just as a cashier forced to hand over money is not considered to be a robber's accomplice.
And how do you know it's God's word? How do you know God's word is trustworthy?
All religions ever observed to originate do so either as jokes or cults. Analyzing the Bible's own claims about it's origin shows a disturbing number of parallels, from a charismatic leader, claiming to be some manner of avatar or channel of a god or other higher power, to commands to shun non believers who refuse the message, not marry nonbelievers, etc. Jesus has numerous red flags about him, but the arguably first gospel written does not do much embellishment, rather it seems almost like a novel inspired by Oddyseus. Nemiroff is right about one thing, at least, Paul was off his rocker. And the vision he had was very remiscent if some experiences that Epileptics have suffered, before, (including the following claims of divine inspiration---some rare epileptics have intense spiritual hallucinations correlating with grandiose delusions.)
Paul's only statement against homosexuality only condemns it in a specific context, and is clearly directed against Greek intelligentsia than ordinary gay people. It's not my concern if it's debated in the church, but if it's debated by relevant experts. Largely, the consensus is that there's no evidence the early church prohibited homosexual marriage, and only evidence that this, like monogamy, prohibition of slavery, radical patriotism, etc., was a Roman sensibility.
And that's not even dealing with the thesis that many writings attributed to Paul are arguably forgeries, a fact which caused a great deal of trouble for the 4th Century church, which had to perform the tasks of putting together a cohesive Christian narrative in the face of wildly disparate, factions and determining what earlier writings were forgeries --- all this even as 4th Century theologians created forgeries, themselves, such as putting words in Josephus' mouth.
That's why I feign ignorance of your discussion about Paul and all the other official spokesmen for Jesus.
All of that those so called followers accomplished changing the invitation to exploitation of the ignorant masses.
Najam, do you understand what is being discussed here?
Jesus had a very important purpose which has been misconstrued by those who seek to usurp authority over the godly.
His job was simply to invite those who had been traditionally rejected and scorned.
Folks took that and ran with it, to the point where it is claimed that Jesus himself is the Almighty God, and he wrote the Bible as his orders on Earth.
I'm getting the suspicion that paul was the antichrist. the personification of the devil in the flesh seeking to undo and corrupt the efforts of jesus almost immediately.
oh wow. the Jefferson's quote on paul is definitely real but in the process I found a site that directly quotes contraditctions between paul and jesus.
jesus: until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law (matthew 5:18)
paul: The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (Hebrews 7:18)
just the first example from a 2 part article.
well unless someone points out something relevant I think my research is complete. I was looking for any sign of virtuous deeds but found none. I did find an interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson which I hope is true as it completely agrees with my conclusion:
Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas jefferson, who wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
I will be interested in hearing what u come up with.
I know that homosexuals in jail lie and say they are not homosexuals in order to have sex with both men and women.
Why would a homosexual that always bribes police never to arrest him, be more truthful than homosexuals who can't bribe police?
You cannot get away with lying to me because I know men who lie to women about what they do with men when no women are present.
I cant accept the bible as the word of God because even according to official canon it was written by human hands many years or centuries after God spoke them. it was at best divinely inspired which is all I believe it claims to be.
the old testament on the other hand claims it was (at least in part) narrated directly by God to moses who simply acted as a transcriber.
as for Paul, the more I read about him, the less credible he becomes. he never even met jesus, except for a brief moment when jesus blinded him, which means his isnt even a 2nd hand account. his conversion revolved around his regaining of sight (can be seen as selfish). he violently persecuted Christians, and after his conversion he seemingly applied his hateful ideology to the disparagement of those he saw as not in line with the teachings of jesus, contrary to the teachings of jesus.
I will do more reading before concluding anything, but I think I have found the source of what lead Christians astray. I dont think Paul is sitting in the grace of God, but the opposite.
agreed. that's why u could say it's a shaky subject
true but if u accept the Bible as the word of God then he, Paul, is said to have been lead by God and the holy spirit.
haha. an ongoing debate in itself. the Bible could be, personally think it has been, shall we say been made more understandable by man so I usually try to be lead by the holy Spirit and what I believe to be right.
Jesus was a rebellious sounding teacher
it is stated throughout the bible, but never from jesus's mouth.
and who cares about Paul? he is nothing more than a human, not even a prophet. he was just a student, and as Aristotle and Plato showed, students of the same teacher can come to contradictory conclusions.
Paul is a flawed human who wrote but 1 version of events out of many, and other flawed humans cherry picked which accounts they choose to accept. do Christian's follow the teachings of God or men?
especially when the teachings of jesus seem contradictory to the claims of his human students.
that gets into a lot of debates in the church. but as far as I seen even though Paul is the main one it is clearly stated throughout the Bible.
because it's my belief that it's God's word.
I think u misunderstand. if your a doctor do u spend most of your time with healthy people or with the sick? he was here for the sick. cults piggyback off many religions. I'm sure there are thousands that piggyback off us alone.
I should add, on a more flattering note, there is a lot of reason to contest that the bible said as much. Certainly Paul appears to, but not all of Paul's letters were really written by Paul. Much of the New Testament is a forgery. Indeed, there is evidence the early church performed many gay marriages. I suspect that homophobia was introduced, especially given the specifically anti Greek-liberalism bent of primary verse oft cited, by a Roman forgery. I'd have to look into that in more detail, however.
And as for the Old Testament, some historians argue the laws against homosexuality were referring to specific religious rites in which homosexual acts were committed.
I also have it on the authority of a scholar of ancient Hebrew culture and language that the Old Testament denotes six different gender identity concepts, without negative judgment or connotation, simply that early translations, which set the standard, didn't recognize what they were looking at. (This may be, in part, an artifact of the literal/readable debate on how to translate Bibles.)
neveralone, why are you deferring to authority of the Bible?
I submit, for your consideration, that perhaps Jesus surrounded himself with addictive personalities because he could manipulate them more easily?
Something rarely considered by Christians is how many parallels exist between Jesus and any modern cult leader.
the only answers i can say definitively is the Bible says it's sin and Jesus was surrounded by sinners. those are the ones we need to be around.
Najam1, do you know what homosexuality actually is? Because I think you just claimed homosexual guys want to "touch all the women"...
A man who rejects all the women for wives, but only willing to have sex with as many as he can; hurts other men who only want the 4 wives. They are in direct competition, one only wants to touch 4, the other wants to touch all, including that guy's 4. Men who don't want wives and children of their own, have a natural tendency to attack the man who does want them.
for you as a Christian, is it bad for you to be gay, or does it hurt you (morally or spiritually) if someone else is gay around you?
depends on your beliefs. is it physically or mentally definitely not. though morally for me being a Christian it's not good but it's what we need to be around. we have been bad doctors for too long.