Homosexuality Rights! Let all Homosexuals have the right to marry

[truefusion 3]

Your verse "implies" what? You can't make a basis of what something means based on what was said thousands of years ago. And this is just considering the *Bible*. Things change meaning all the time (For example, up until recently - the word "gay" meant "happy." There was no alternate meaning for it).

The verses i had in mind imply and explicitly mention that humans are to be heterosexual; not necessarily monogynistic, but according to the Bible, divorce is only allowed because humans are foolish. Even if the definition of a word was changed, or if more definitions were added to the word, you can still use context to determine its meaning. And it's not as ambiguous as you're implying. Likewise, many words used back then aren't even used today (you can even see this within the English language when comparing old English and today's English), therefore those old words are left untouched.

 

And you aren't considering any other religion if you believe that way, either. So again the basis has no true substance. Two huge flaws with your thoughts.

I actually don't need to. Homosexuality is generally disowned among the religions. In fact, concerning many laws, they agree on many parts. So, concerning these, i would really be indirectly referencing them.

 

(I can pull up hundreds of religious words that have changed over the past 40-50 years alone in meaning. The basis we use of what they mean is based on what they mean *today*, not necessarily their original meaning. And if we follow everything the Bible says, why is slavery illegal? The Bible actually *condones* slavery. And that was in the *old* meaning. Of course it's not as bad as the Qur'ān stating that if your wife disobeys you, you need to use physical force to get her back under control.)

Anyone can pull up the word itself, practically any word, so long as it is out of context, and show how it has changed. It can basically be argued that slavery is illegal today because it did not at least follow the slavery laws written in the Bible. In the Bible slaves are to be set free every seven years (unless the slave themselves insist on remaining a slave—which implies that the master proved to be beneficial to the slave). When they are set free, they are not to be set free empty handed and are to be provided some resources for temporary survival outside of their ex-master's home. Also, if a slave were to be punished for disobedience or for perhaps stealing from their master, if they lose some bodily functional parts due to the punishment, they are to be set free. In the USA when slavery was legal, some masters would often cut off their slaves' thumbs. Likewise, by Biblical law, if a slave were to be killed due to punishment, the master would in turn be punished. There are many differences between Biblical slavery and the slavery that was banned in this country. Nevertheless, the Biblical laws were merely standards that one were to follow. It is merely a minimum, where no one should act lesser than. Acting greater than is allowed.

 

I get the impression that this part was also meant to answer the first question in the quote you provide of me. In other words, to me, you're implying that laws are unjustifiable by nature.

 

Yet humans are yet again expected to separate themselves from every other species in the world and be something they are not meant to be.

I know this part isn't directed to me, but i am interested on what you believe humans are supposed or meant to be.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Anyone can pull up the word itself, practically any word, so long as it is out of context, and show how it has changed. It can basically be argued that slavery is illegal today because it did not at least follow the slavery laws written in the Bible. In the Bible slaves are to be set free every seven years (unless the slave themselves insist on remaining a slave?which implies that the master proved to be beneficial to the slave). When they are set free, they are not to be set free empty handed and are to be provided some resources for temporary survival outside of their ex-master's home. Also, if a slave were to be punished for disobedience or for perhaps stealing from their master, if they lose some bodily functional parts due to the punishment, they are to be set free. In the USA when slavery was legal, some masters would often cut off their slaves' thumbs. Likewise, by Biblical law, if a slave were to be killed due to punishment, the master would in turn be punished. There are many differences between Biblical slavery and the slavery that was banned in this country. Nevertheless, the Biblical laws were merely standards that one were to follow. It is merely a minimum, where no one should act lesser than. Acting greater than is allowed.

Great justification for your beliefs. Seriously. I'm amazed anyone else understands slavery and how it is/was/was supposed to be. Most have no idea but try to claim they do.

 

And yes, you're absolutely correct about that.

 

As for marriage, the Bible never states anything about it. That is a concept people came up with long after the fact.

 

About not allowing gay relationships, you're right. It is in the Bible. "Man shall not lie with man, nor with beast." (Which, by the way, is funny to me because it means beastiality has been around a *long* time).

 

Anyways, I applaud you. There are still a few things you've said that I disagree with but on some of it it's pretty clear you do have a thorough understanding.

[anwiii 17]

umm...you are missing one key ingredient to your areguement. everyone is different and not the same. everyone is born different. this is a fact. to compare yourself to and animal or another human being is irrelevant and your whole argement gets trashed if you DO try to compare

TRUEFUSION- homosexuality is not an act, it is a sexual orientation. let's not try to change the definaition of what homosexuality is just to suit your biased arguements. we cannot choose who or what we are attracted to. if it IS an act, it is a natural one. not a forced one.

sheeesh....i remember hearing these arguements when i was a teenager. nothing has changed unfortunately...

Your verse "implies" what? You can't make a basis of what something means based on what was said thousands of years ago. And this is just considering the *Bible*. Things change meaning all the time (For example, up until recently - the word "gay" meant "happy." There was no alternate meaning for it).
And you aren't considering any other religion if you believe that way, either. So again the basis has no true substance. Two huge flaws with your thoughts.

(I can pull up hundreds of religious words that have changed over the past 40-50 years alone in meaning. The basis we use of what they mean is based on what they mean *today*, not necessarily their original meaning. And if we follow everything the Bible says, why is slavery illegal? The Bible actually *condones* slavery. And that was in the *old* meaning. Of course it's not as bad as the Qur'ān stating that if your wife disobeys you, you need to use physical force to get her back under control.)



Every other animal in the world uses violence to get what they need (in a "wild," undomesticated setting), so why should humans be any different? This is yet another issue with "societal norms" today.

Consider deer. The bucks will either fight, or in a lot of cases, kill one another in order to win over the doe.
Rhinos do it, bulls do it, dogs do it, cats do it, lions do it, tigers do it... I could go on and on.

Yet humans are yet again expected to separate themselves from every other species in the world and be something they are not meant to be.

(For the record, in forensic psychology there is a lot of interesting information. For example, people who murder others have physically different brains than "normal" people. It is said, and is highly taken in as being true, that people do not have control over whether or not they are rapists, murderers, etc. because it is a *physical* alteration when they are born. This also goes to gay people.)

[Nameless_ 1]

If you have noticed... I, the original poster has been avoiding this thread for a while, posting in others instead...I meant this thread to be a vent, just for me to put something down and relief myself, not a debate session!!! I'm scared from all the hostile tones and all that... keep it down guys, chill.After all, it's just a thread.And to make this post related to the topic of Homosexuality Rights, I must say that I agree with anwiii.Homosexuality is not an act, it is a sexual orientation.I still don't understand why people think girly guys are gay though. They don't have to be. Gay people are just sexually attracted to the same sex, they're not gay because they look are act like the opposite sex.It's a common misconception that should be changed and understood...Don't judge people with stereotypes, but judge them by who they really are...

[truefusion 3]

As for marriage, the Bible never states anything about it. That is a concept people came up with long after the fact.

I suppose "Godly union" is more accurate than the term "marriage," but the term "marriage" is less ambiguous than "Godly union." Biblically, marriage does not require any paper work (except for divorce, but still not as complicated as certain countries make it out to be), a ring (which i hear wedding rings are from pagan origin), ceremonies (e.g. weddings) or what-have-you. Therefore whenever a friend of mine calls his girlfriend his "wife," i accept it. I mean, Adam and Eve didn't go through all of that stuff, yet Eve is labeled Adam's wife, and Adam her husband.

TRUEFUSION- homosexuality is not an act, it is a sexual orientation. let's not try to change the definaition of what homosexuality is just to suit your biased arguements. we cannot choose who or what we are attracted to. if it IS an act, it is a natural one. not a forced one.

Special pleading, again. Anyway, i don't consider someone a "homosexual" unless they commit a homosexual act. In the same way, i don't consider a person a "baker" unless they know how to bake things (and perhaps does it for a living); i don't consider a person a "fisherman" unless they fish regularly; et cetera.

I'm scared from all the hostile tones and all that... keep it down guys, chill.

"Loud" is often considered by how the person reads the posts. If you feel there is emotion within the post, then you'll most likely consider it "loud." If you read things with the assumption that the person was calm, then you'll most likely see it as calm.

Homosexuality is not an act, it is a sexual orientation.
[...]

Don't judge people with stereotypes, but judge them by who they really are...

Actions speak louder than words, therefore i do judge them by "who they really are." Hence i don't call someone a "homosexual" just because they claim that they are interested in the same sex in a way that is different than how i'd be.

[anwiii 17]

so thee is no such thing as "in the closet" then? you can have 100% homosexual thoughts and 100% homosexual preferences, but if a homosexual hides his identity by not committing a homosexual act and maybe living a lie like some do, then he isn't homosexual? is that what you are saying?

are you saying that if you marry a woman and promise to love her til death to you part, but during the marriage, if you fanasize about being with other women BESIDES your own wife that you have grown tired of, that that is not cheating? still dealing with preferences now. should that man be married to that women that he doesn't fantasize over?

come now truefusion. that's like saying if magic johnson visits a high school and players a high schooler in one on one basketball and lets the guy win. magic isn't being magic, but he's still in the top 5 greatest basketball players of all time..

my point is. just because one hides who they are doesn't mean they aren't who they are. you are really gonna sit there and tell me you believe different? you bury yourself at your own funeral then like you're doing now.\

so what if a straight guy never had sex and practiced abstinence his whole life? he never commited any act, therefore he doesn't have a sexual orientation? haha what exactly are you trying to say because i am having a hard time gettin' it

Special pleading, again. Anyway, i don't consider someone a "homosexual" unless they commit a homosexual act. In the same way, i don't consider a person a "baker" unless they know how to bake things (and perhaps does it for a living); i don't consider a person a "fisherman" unless they fish regularly; et cetera.

Edited August 11, 2009 by anwiii (see edit history)

[rpgsearcherz 5]

so thee is no such thing as "in the closet" then? you can have 100% homosexual thoughts and 100% homosexual preferences, but if a homosexual hides his identity by not committing a homosexual act and maybe living a lie like some do, then he isn't homosexual? is that what you are saying?
are you saying that if you marry a woman and promise to love her til death to you part, but during the marriage, if you fanasize about being with other women BESIDES your own wife that you have grown tired of, that that is not cheating? still dealing with preferences now. should that man be married to that women that he doesn't fantasize over?

come now truefusion. that's like saying if magic johnson visits a high school and players a high schooler in one on one basketball and lets the guy win. magic isn't being magic, but he's still in the top 5 greatest basketball players of all time..

my point is. just because one hides who they are doesn't mean they aren't who they are. you are really gonna sit there and tell me you believe different? you bury yourself at your own funeral then like you're doing now.\

so what if a straight guy never had sex and practiced abstinence his whole life? he never commited any act, therefore he doesn't have a sexual orientation? haha what exactly are you trying to say because i am having a hard time gettin' it

Wow, something I can agree with you on.

I also believe that if someone has sexual preference towards others of the same gender, they are "homosexual." The word homosexual doesn't mean actions must be done, hence "homosexual tendencies." It's just an orientation (way of thinking).

Much like a pervert doesn't have to spy on girls or guys, you can be a pervert based on your way of thinking ("perverted thoughts").

[truefusion 3]

so thee is no such thing as "in the closet" then? you can have 100% homosexual thoughts and 100% homosexual preferences, but if a homosexual hides his identity by not committing a homosexual act and maybe living a lie like some do, then he isn't homosexual? is that what you are saying?

Having homosexual thoughts does not necessarily show that they're a homosexual; they would have to enjoy the thoughts (do note that "100% homosexual thoughts" is slightly ambiguous); "to enjoy" is an act. Since preference implies choice, choosing to be a homosexual would make them a homosexual, since that implies having committed a homosexual act.

 

are you saying that if you marry a woman and promise to love her til death to you part, but during the marriage, if you fanasize about being with other women BESIDES your own wife that you have grown tired of, that that is not cheating? still dealing with preferences now. should that man be married to that women that he doesn't fantasize over?

Since in this case he would be enjoying the thoughts (rather than being disturbed by them), the guy would be labeled a cheater and guilty of adultery, and should not be married to his wife.

[Nameless_ 1]

Question: If god created rape for reproduction, why did he make sex pleasurable to induce reproduction in the first place?People don't actually like to get raped, you know.Also, why sin? I thought sin was an act against god...

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Question:
If god created rape for reproduction, why did he make sex pleasurable to induce reproduction in the first place?
People don't actually like to get raped, you know.

Also, why sin? I thought sin was an act against god...

Animals can "rape" each other too, but religiously there is no "Heaven" or "Hell" for them. So if rape is a sin, wouldn't that mean animals would also have a Hell because they can sin against God just as we can? Either that, or rape isn't a sin and you won't go to Hell for it. The laws/rules against rape are just another "society said it's wrong" thing, but does that make it wrong? Again, it's up to each person on their own.

As for it being "pleasurable," plenty of Biblically wrong things are : destroying your body by eating way too much (God says your body is his temple and not to destroy it, but if eating a lot of junk food is fun... Wait, isn't that a sin then? One that God wants us to do because he made it fun to begin with? And non-domesticated animals don't over-eat, so clearly it's only "fun" for us.)

Another is drinking alcohol. The effects it causes on your body are far worse than the short-term effects people often use in their arguments. And drinking is fun, right? But wait... Again it's destroying God's temple (your body), so that makes it a sin.

Therefore you can't use the argument that it is "fun" to justify whether or not God wants people to do things. There are plenty of fun things God disagrees with.

(And the Bible says nothing about rape being wrong, by the way. The only real sex it talks about is "Man shall not lie with man, nor with beast" and then the talks about men sleeping with women and the woman having a child. Aside from that, there is no other talk)

[anwiii 17]

ok. now we are getting somewhere. having thoughts are considered actions to you. so obviously any homosexual would at least have the thoughts of being homosexual....if they didn't have those thoughts, they wouldn't be considered homosexual. good we cleared that up. i don't really agree with that scenario. i've thought evilevil thoughts before but i don't consider those "actions" making me evil.

Since in this case he would be enjoying the thoughts (rather than being disturbed by them), the guy would be labeled a cheater and guilty of adultery, and should not be married to his wife.

[truefusion 3]

If god created rape for reproduction, why did he make sex pleasurable to induce reproduction in the first place?

 

Also, why sin? I thought sin was an act against god...

The "if" part of the question can be left out, as it is not required to introduce the remainder of the question. Also, if the only reason we have for answering the question is due to the "if" part, then we wouldn't need to answer the question, since God didn't create rape. But the answer to the question would be something like: if pleasure from sexual intercourse induces reproduction, then it's an observable design pattern for His command in Genesis 1:28.

 

As for the second question, given the context, it could be asking why God created sin or why do humans sin. Obviously the former is illogical, leaving the latter. Why people sin depends solely on the person.

 

(And the Bible says nothing about rape being wrong, by the way. The only real sex it talks about is "Man shall not lie with man, nor with beast" and then the talks about men sleeping with women and the woman having a child. Aside from that, there is no other talk)

I can only remember one explicit reference and that's Deuteronomy 22:25-27, but there may be more.

 

i've thought evilevil thoughts before but i don't consider those "actions" making me evil.

Yeah, there are many different kinds of thoughts (scenarios) that can come into play here. But i guess the enjoyment requirement is a good, practical standard for judging whether or not a person is how they think. When i think about it, a person who enjoys evil (at least to me) is on some level evil.

[Nameless_ 1]

Animals can "rape" each other too, but religiously there is no "Heaven" or "Hell" for them. So if rape is a sin, wouldn't that mean animals would also have a Hell because they can sin against God just as we can? Either that, or rape isn't a sin and you won't go to Hell for it. The laws/rules against rape are just another "society said it's wrong" thing, but does that make it wrong? Again, it's up to each person on their own.

 

As for it being "pleasurable," plenty of Biblically wrong things are : destroying your body by eating way too much (God says your body is his temple and not to destroy it, but if eating a lot of junk food is fun... Wait, isn't that a sin then? One that God wants us to do because he made it fun to begin with? And non-domesticated animals don't over-eat, so clearly it's only "fun" for us.)

 

Another is drinking alcohol. The effects it causes on your body are far worse than the short-term effects people often use in their arguments. And drinking is fun, right? But wait... Again it's destroying God's temple (your body), so that makes it a sin.

 

Therefore you can't use the argument that it is "fun" to justify whether or not God wants people to do things. There are plenty of fun things God disagrees with.

 

(And the Bible says nothing about rape being wrong, by the way. The only real sex it talks about is "Man shall not lie with man, nor with beast" and then the talks about men sleeping with women and the woman having a child. Aside from that, there is no other talk)

I must say then, God, if there was a God, works in mysterious ways... and somehow or rather, we have turned to and are quoting from the Christian Bible. What I meant in the first post was for any God that disagreed with Homosexuality, like the ones in Eastern Europe, though it is quite clear than not many (maybe even none) know about their Gods and their ways...

 

Anyhow, going back the the Christian God, it just sounds like god WANTED us to sin. He knew it would happen. He forbids it. And yet he still lets it happen. What kind of God is that?

 

God created pleasure, God created pain (he created everything). We are also told that God knows everything and anything in all dimensions of space and time (past, present and the future), so he would have created the things we call "fun" pleasurable.

 

Let's say God did not talk about rape being wrong... isn't that just a downgrade of the female society? That if man wanted sex, the females have to give it to them, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. How much do the females have to pay for the original sin? Isn't that a bit too much. The UN has something called "Human Rights". Does God have that too?

 

If god created rape and didn't think that was a sin... that's just too gruesome to think about.

 

The "if" part of the question can be left out, as it is not required to introduce the remainder of the question. Also, if the only reason we have for answering the question is due to the "if" part, then we wouldn't need to answer the question, since God didn't create rape. But the answer to the question would be something like: if pleasure from sexual intercourse induces reproduction, then it's an observable design pattern for His command in Genesis 1:28.

 

As for the second question, given the context, it could be asking why God created sin or why do humans sin. Obviously the former is illogical, leaving the latter. Why people sin depends solely on the person.

 

 

I can only remember one explicit reference and that's Deuteronomy 22:25-27, but there may be more.

 

 

Yeah, there are many different kinds of thoughts (scenarios) that can come into play here. But i guess the enjoyment requirement is a good, practical standard for judging whether or not a person is how they think. When i think about it, a person who enjoys evil (at least to me) is on some level evil.

I said IF, because by putting IF into the question, we allow thought and space for the possibility that God doesn't exist.

So, with:

 

"IF God created rape for reproduction... ..."

(That was actually a reply for the last post on the first page, I forgot to quote, sorry)

 

Of course, God created rape (maybe not for reproduction), he created everything!

But we're talking about a contradictory God here... so, what if God DIDN'T exist?

 

This is why I put the if there...

 

Would it be better if I said:

 

"IF rape was just a natural thing and act of the humans and animals of Earth, and no 'God' or some random 'deity' created all this?"

 

Do you understand now?

And also... let's say he did created rape for reproduction... then where does sex come in all this?

(Assuming that sex and rape are two totally different things)

 

He made sex pleasurable, and lustful (let's not say sinful for the moment)... so much that rape appeared... What about the booming population?

Why rape and not only sex?

[truefusion 3]

I said IF, because by putting IF into the question, we allow thought and space for the possibility that God doesn't exist. So, with:

"IF God created rape for reproduction... ..."

The first and the second part of the question assume His existence: the first part (the if part) due to the fact that, in this case, only yields two possibilities; the second part due to the use of the word "he." So i don't think it is practical for one to derive the possibility of His inexistence from the question.

(That was actually a reply for the last post on the first page, I forgot to quote, sorry)

I figured that much, but i wasn't satisfied with rpgsearcherz response.

Of course, God created rape (maybe not for reproduction), he created everything!But we're talking about a contradictory God here... so, what if God DIDN'T exist?

God's existence isn't dependent on whether or not someone can argue for His existence, therefore we're not necessarily talking about a contradictory God. But given the implications, if God didn't exist, chances are, existence itself would not exist.

Would it be better if I said:
"IF rape was just a natural thing and act of the humans and animals of Earth, and no 'God' or some random 'deity' created all this?"

Do you understand now?

I'm not sure if i understand it now. Do you mean, "What if rape was a natural occurrence for procreation and non-procreation reasons and there was no God who created everything?"? If so, then assuming existence is possible without God, then it wouldn't matter if rape was the dominate course of action, that is, at least concerning morals. If people don't like it, then they should try to do something about it. But there would be no moral justification for either side. But if that's not what you meant, then, no, i don't understand.

And also... let's say he did created rape for reproduction... then where does sex come in all this? (Assuming that sex and rape are two totally different things)

Although the assumption that an action is able to be caused in the same sense as matter is unnecessary here, sex, in the case you propose, would be for non-reproductive reasons.

He made sex pleasurable, and lustful (let's not say sinful for the moment)... so much that rape appeared... What about the booming population?Why rape and not only sex?

The reason for choosing something over the other is wholly dependent on the individual making the choice, that is, where free will is present. Therefore i cannot provide any absolute reasons why a person, or animal, would choose to enforce themselves upon another individual. Nevertheless, it tends to always come down to lack of self-control. With animals they tend to have no self control unless perhaps when watched over. With people that can also be the case, but with people there are exceptions (even if they're rare).

[Nameless_ 1]

The first and the second part of the question assume His existence: the first part (the if part) due to the fact that, in this case, only yields two possibilities; the second part due to the use of the word "he." So i don't think it is practical for one to derive the possibility of His inexistence from the question.

 

 

I figured that much, but i wasn't satisfied with rpgsearcherz response.

 

 

God's existence isn't dependent on whether or not someone can argue for His existence, therefore we're not necessarily talking about a contradictory God. But given the implications, if God didn't exist, chances are, existence itself would not exist.

 

 

I'm not sure if i understand it now. Do you mean, "What if rape was a natural occurrence for procreation and non-procreation reasons and there was no God who created everything?"? If so, then assuming existence is possible without God, then it wouldn't matter if rape was the dominate course of action, that is, at least concerning morals. If people don't like it, then they should try to do something about it. But there would be no moral justification for either side. But if that's not what you meant, then, no, i don't understand.

 

 

Although the assumption that an action is able to be caused in the same sense as matter is unnecessary here, sex, in the case you propose, would be for non-reproductive reasons.

 

 

The reason for choosing something over the other is wholly dependent on the individual making the choice, that is, where free will is present. Therefore i cannot provide any absolute reasons why a person, or animal, would choose to enforce themselves upon another individual. Nevertheless, it tends to always come down to lack of self-control. With animals they tend to have no self control unless perhaps when watched over. With people that can also be the case, but with people there are exceptions (even if they're rare).

Don't know how to do multiple quotes like you (when it's all from the same person), so I won't do that... ...

 

1) I get the bit when you say:

So i don't think it is practical for one to derive the possibility of His inexistence from the question.

I suppose you are right, because by putting "if" in the question, we are wondering whether God created rape, which he did, of course (if he did exist)... as he created everything.

 

So a question with better wording from me will be this:

"Does god exist? Let's say he did. Then why would he created rape as a method of reproduction if he initially wanted sex to be the method of reproduction?"

The thing is, he made sex to be pleasurable, so people will have sex and reproduce. But why rape?

 

2) We are talking about a contradictory God, because he is contradicted himself. He created both sex and rape... which is, while it is the same act, totally different, as sex requires mutual agreement, and rape requires force of a stronger sex on a weaker one (in most cases, if not all, male raping females). He makes it so that the society thinks that sex is lustful, a sin, and uses rape to be the act of getting controlled by lust (the devil). But he also makes it essential for humans to have sex because it is the only way for us to passed down our genes and live as a species, and he make sex pleasurable to induce this.

 

3) Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

 

4) No, I meant RAPE is for non-reproductive reasons, and sex is for reproductive reasons. Rape is for personal reasons for quench a man's thirst and lust for sexual relief, not for reproductive systems.

 

5) We have always deemed ourselves having more self control than animals, we are superior, they are not. But the thing is, animals don't neccessarily "rape" each other. If an animal don't want sexual intercourse, they can just leave. It's just a matter of seducing your mate. But human beings, on the other hand, do not.

 

Should one member of the couple (usually a female) not want the have sex, the other (male) will FORCE his or her partner, maybe bruising him or her in the proccess of doing so. You don't see animals doing that, do you? Even crickets, in which the males get eaten by the females after intercourse allows thsi to happen. But humans don't.

 

Humans FORCE... it's a sad thing in our society.

 

(By the way, I missed out the point you made on rpgsearchez, just in case you were wondering why there was one point short... I thought I didn't have to answer that... just want to say thanks in understanding who that post was for.)