I'm down with whatever anyone else is down with. I'm not homosexual, but if someone else is and it makes them happy, I'm down with that. More power to anyone that can find a way to live happily.

Fact.

I'm with you on that one. I'm not homosexual myself but I feel people should love whoever they want to love. It's not hurting anybody and it makes no difference to me.

Ok, I won't even try and quote every little phrase in the past two pages that I've wanted to talk about.... so I'll generalize by talking to people.

@DB: (first off, sorry you took most of the brunt for this...) But I'm with you. It's first off, a moral no-no for guys to "like" guys and vice-versa. The bible does say things against homosexial marriage. I don't know every instance, I'm no scriptorian, but I do know that it does.

Also, for another way to bring both you and the other guys' view of the Bible (you mentioned that if it isn't in the bible, it shouldn't have been there anyway vs. people "purposely" left things out over time) together, I'll give you my perspective. You're both right. The bible was translated into I think at least 4 different languages before it got to English. Knowing Spanish fluently myself, it's hard to perfectly translate everything without loosing SOME meaning. Also, they had to translate it by hand multiple times, and people kinda also got lazy... so there's things that have accidentally been left out during re-transcription. Kinda food for thought.

So, now this brings me up to the whole "adam and (whoever the other guy called it)" arguement. Adam was first created and then Eve was created by taking a rib from Adam. Not saying that Eve is inferior to Adam, or even if God dissected Adam and jacked a rib from him, but it's to say that they were both created to compliment each other. This is true because in the LDS faith, we have other books of scripture called the Pearl of Great Price. Basically, God asked Joseph Smith to restore the errors due to aforementioned reasons. During this translation, he was inspired to re-construct the Book of Moses (ya, same moses who parted the red sea.). In this book, there is an account of where God conversed with Moses and showed him the creation and the creation of Adam and Eve. So, we now have two reccords that what happened, happened. (Genesis and Moses).

REMEMBER, this is what I believe in, maybe what you don't believe in. I'm always open to share more, but please, do not slam me for my beliefs. Thanks.

I am honestly against it to be honest. I guess religeon is one reason I think this way. Another could be the way I was brought up. I could go on and on about the possibilities of why I can't stand it, but I think it all boils down to one thing. It has always repulsed me since as long as I can remember, even before religeon or parental guidence became a contributing factor. I can't stand the sight of it. To be honest, I can't even watch adult films featuring girl on girl and be excited about it (sorry if that was a little TMI).

Homosexuality is something I always believed was wrong. Even if you toss religeon aside and look at it scientifically you can see something doesn't add up. Why else would you need both a man and a woman to reproduce? No matter how you feel on the issue it is a FACT that people are designed, by higher being or otherwise, to only interact sexually with partners of the opposite sex.

Even though I feel strongly about this I must point out I won't try to put someone down for being homosexual. I will try to keep my distance but I don't act rude if a homosexual would try to talk to me. However, even though I try not to be rude or put anyone down, I myself get offended so to speak should I witness homosexual PDA such as kissing.

This is just how I feel on the issue. I have no intention to offend anyone who reads this.

~LordChrono~

I really don't give a ##### if a man is gay or not.. But I am amused by people who say homosexuality will send you to hell, isn't there something in the bible saying. "Love your fellow man." Well, whatever I said my point.

And I've pointed out in this thread how such midieval logic really doesn't apply to modern society. If you stick by your "natural" logic, then why would they put the prostate in such an odd place? Why would it be stimulating at all? And for the record, if Sex only existed for the point of procreation, why would we feel anything when we do it? Why wouldn't we be able to do the deed and get absolutely nothing out of it (besides a child, of course.)

If sex wasn't meant to be pleasurable, then it wouldn't be. But somehow, it is. *gasp*
Even as far as religion goes, I question whether that holds any basis or not, or whether its the same exact thing the Christians used to justify slavery, or to justify the oppression of black people until and throughout the Civil Rights Movement. (even today some do, but I'd like to say they are more radical as opposed to rational.)


And I'll tell you that from what I read, it borders a little bit on obsession. Where it goes from being uncomfortable, to being disgusting, to making one angry, to making one violent.
This is why a guy recently shot up a church who only believed that it was right.
This is why Matthew Shepard was maimed and murdered.
This is why, for the longest time, the "Gay Panic" defense actually held up in court.

This is also why we fought back at Stonewall. Intolerance is a personal problem, please keep it to yourself.
Not saying that to you particularly, Chrono, as it seems you already do for the most part, but maybe to a few others in the thread.


P.S. - To Dragon Brigade - I guess I have a question for you, as a catholic, why did the Catholic Church recognize the existence of homosexuals by asking them to be abstinent? Yes, certainly they still say its wrong for them to have intercourse, but if its recognized as a natural, biological behavior, why on earth is it still "wrong"?

I'd also ask why they posed as witch doctors in South America, but thats not very on topic, now is it?

There are still many things on the human body that are unexplained, other than theories.
Just because the prostate is near the anus doesn't mean it is meant for homosexual purposes. It is pretty stupid to think that. About the sex thing, all I can think of is that is pleasurable, so that humankind wants to reproduce. Seriously, would you wanna reproduce if it hurts like hell?

There are still things unexplained, I mean what is our tail bone for?

All I know is, to reproduce, one needs a male and a female. Considering reproducing is our instinct, our purpose in life and nature doesn't allow homosexuals to reproduce, all I can say is that is against the forces of nature.

To each their own.

Because people are tolerant and keep intolerance mainly to themselves is one of the reasons why this world is collapsing.




Because religion contradicts many natural aspects.

Because so many different atrocities occur in the name of tolerance.
I'm confused by this statement, mind elaborating?
The second question was mostly aimed at Dragon Brigade pointing towards a contradiction within her own religion. Though your opinion is welcome, your cynicism was kind of redundant.



I wasn't implying that it was meant for homosexual purposes. However, given that prostate stimulation is seen by the majority as a strictly homosexual thing due to miserable outdated concepts of both sexuality and masculinity. Truth be told, its not. I'd get into the fact that a penis isn't the best tool to use for prostate stimulation, but thats a little bit too much sexual content and detail to get into for this particular discussion.

My main concern with the points you raise is that you honestly believe that the purpose of all human life is to simply follow our basic, primal instincts to procreate? Is that how you define your place in the world? Is that how you define yourself?

I can't believe that, possibly due to my homosexual nature, or perhaps due to me being a romantic when it comes to life and the world. We see all these things, that both gay and straight people invented and built. We've covered a lot of ground and done some amazing things with the world, and theres still a lot of bridges to cross. I would like to say that we, as humans, have moved on past our basic biological nature, or at the very least we are well on our way there.

I'd like to say we have minds, we're able to think for ourselves, and that we aren't completely dominated by our instincts. We can rationalize things a lot more. We can create things to help us live more efficiently. To say that its "not natural" is simply a moot point in modern times and just a genuinely bad argument to use.

The basic instinct is to survive. No matter how you look at it, it is there.
Humankind always had this thrive to survive and I am pretty sure that this will remain. It is a basic instinct that has brought us all the way here.
We build houses to protect ourselves, we make weapons, roads, clothing and whatnot. Why? You fill it in.

I agree with you 100% that things are not the same as they were x years ago. However, the primary thing remains, homosexuality is against the forces of nature. Nature does not allow you to procreate with the same sex. It cannot happen, as the bodies are not designed that way. It is not just humankind, even the animal kingdom has this.
Many people always come with "oh, but there is homosexuality amongst animals as well", it is still remains against the forces of nature.

Now, I am not saying that we're still primates and that we think that sex is only to procreate. I am saying that survival is a basic human instinct that has always been with us. We keep evolving and thus we get more and more complicated. One thing has always remained the same, to procreate, you need opposite sexes, even with the help of science, you still need nature's help.

And no, I believe our basic biological nature will always remain with us. What do you think what will happen when 80% of mankind dies in a catastrophic attack? I am pretty sure that people will think about how to survive and building up a new world. Survival is key.

And as I said, to each their own. People can be gay, however they want. Just keep it to yourself. I mean, I keep my heterosexuality to myself, so why is that some homosexuals need to openly announce it to the world every time?

I stayed out of this thread til now because I figured Tony would be steam rolling people.

This subject, internet wide is the deadest maggot infested bone charred horse I've ever seen in my life. I mean damn, the poor horse gets DRAGGED OUT OF THE GRAVE when you think it's over. Society is so ##### retarded. People refuse to except what isn't the norm and fear what they don't understand. Rather than ask questions and seek out understanding. WOW, what kind of gender one prefers is their business. Is it really worth QQ'ing over and getting? Nevermind the fakes who prance around like pansies given that community the reputation it has now. And religion, lolbible. Religion has been borked by retarded society so much that I've denounced my association with the now extremists christians, but still believe in God. What's funny is, we were taught to accept all things, and not force his will onto others who do not follow him.. And the whole "bible says homosexuality is sin" was not placed there in the books by the apostles but by the retarded society of today. Really my mom's old bibles say something about it being a sin.

Oh it's not wrong. Just wrong in your eyes. ALL HAIL CONFORMITY! INDIVIDUALITY SHALL BURN IN THE DEPTHS OF HELL. How dare other people have different preference .

Everything is tolerated these days: wars, religion, irreligion, homosexuality, politics, etc. Those who do not tolerate are shunned and shushed. Basically, the world created the thought that "not tolerating" is wrong, while intolerance could make some drastic changes for the better. I don't know how, and I'm certain that the cure would be painful at first, but worth the trouble in the end--its realization is possible that is. Cancer is not cured by eating ice cream; it is cured by undergoing surgeries and going through chemotherapy, which is very unpleasant.

Some gay people get beaten or stabbed by some homophobes, and while that [i]is[/b] intolerance, there are homosexuals in the world regardless. So as long as there are homosexuals in the world, no matter if there are people who don't tolerate them, they are still a mundane tolerance.

I don't like gay people, but I wouldn't stab or beat a person for being gay either.

What I was trying to convey is that intolerance is a painful way to Utopia, which is, by all means, impossible for humans in their current state. But the incapability of humans doesn't prove the impossibility of Utopia. Utopia is very much possible.

I strayed a bit off topic, but it's all kind of connected.

*sigh* This is so redundant. I'm not even sure why I'm posting or if it will make sense at all.

Look at it this way, Pes. Since ancient times, even back when man was at its most basic, primal state, fighting for survival, gay people existed. They had their own roles within the tribes, their own place amongst their community. They weren't shunned, they weren't pointed at and called un-natural. They had their own nature and followed it. And since then, Homosexuality has existed in a good 10% of the population, practically unchanged.

I'm sure, even if 85% of humans were to get wiped out by some catastrophic event (which would still leave 70 million humans roaming the earth, for the record), This same pattern would still exist. There will always be homosexuals, just as there will always be heterosexuals. And naturally, Heterosexuals will always outnumber the homosexuals.

Even amongst animals, homosexual male and female animals have their own, separate place and duties inside their herd. This kind of behavior has been observed as well. To simply deny its a part of nature would go against a lot of that evidence.

But my point is, if it is "un-natural", as you so well put it, so what? One thing that you've failed to really answer is why does our nature matter so much, why does it factor into whats right and wrong? We're still people, with fully capable minds, capable of doing things outside of breeding to help further the survival of the human race.

Also, we won't shut up until people acknowledge we exist and allow us our rights. Not until we stop being second class citizens and token gay friends. And do you really think you keep your heterosexuality to yourself? When you post a picture with your arm around your girlfriends shoulder, what exactly do you think you're doing? Flaunting your heterosexuality, of course! And even if you keep your heterosexuality to yourself, how exactly do you express your love?

Wes - You don't know how right you are. A lot of people don't realize that all the social stigma against homosexuality, particularly involving the bible, was more the result of politics of the romans as opposed to divine mandate. As far as mainstream gay "culture" goes, what an absolute spineless joke. Of course, most of it has to do with a ridiculous, outdated definition of masculinity. I believe thats where all of this comes from to begin with.

Vincent - I kind of figured thats where you were getting at. But thats a discussion for a completely different thread, feel free to make it and I'll gladly debate.

Oh wow, now I understand how much you misunderstood me. I never claimed homosexuality is something that started recently. I am not saying homosexuality is wrong/unnatural either.

I am saying that, once a catastrophic event happens that wipes out the vast majority of humankind, our instincts will tell us to survive, to reproduce and to fend for ourselves. Whether one is gay, or not doesn't even matter.
How many times have you heard stories about gay men having sex with a woman, so that 2 gay men can adopt the child? Sex remains a basic instinct as well, just listen to the prison stories.

What happens when all buildings get destroyed and we loose all access to technology? We go back to our roots. The roots our forefathers planted in us, basic hunting, building villages and making spears. Humankind still has its basic instincts.

With the forces of nature, I mean that one cannot reproduce with two of the same sex. This is a fact. Reproducing requires two opposite sexes. Nature does not allow gay people to reproduce. This is a fact. I can't make anything else from it. Nature doesn't say, you're not allowed to be together. You just can't reproduce and this is a fact.

And nature does matter a lot. Nature grants us life. Cut down all the trees and plants in the world and see how we survive. Without nature, we would be dead, homosexual or not.
Anyway, I am not saying homosexuality is wrong. To each their own, I said. However, our basic instinct is to reproduce, whether one is gay or not. We have a thrive to survive, as I pointed out in said scenario.
Of course there will be homosexual people, but that doesn't mean they lack the will to survive, or repopulate the planet. Are you saying homosexual people are different than heterosexual people? Like, lost all basic instincts, will to survive and become lazy when it comes to repopulating a planet that got nearly whiped out? Don't tell me you believe that.

Now to make something clear, as Vins misunderstood me and thus I assume others do as well.
I am not saying that homosexuality is right, or wrong, unnatural or any other kind of thing. People can do whatever they want and however they please.

Okay.
So you're not saying that homosexuality is wrong. Check.
You're also not saying that its un-natural. Check.

What are you saying? And why are you saying it?

What does your doomsday scenario have to do with our modern society? Besides being entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, you're using this to make a point that does everything but state the obvious. I don't get it. You need a man and a woman to make babies. Is that really the only point you're trying to make?

I'm not even going to try and make sense out of it anymore. I spent the last half hour trying to. Make your point and make it concise, because I and I'm sure the other members of this thread really have no idea what you're trying to say.

As he should. I'm too lazy to do it.

I am curious as to why people say stuff like "I hate/dislike gays."
What is the point of hating somebody for their sexuality? Why hate somebody for loving somebody, regardless of gender? You don't even know the person, and yet you are going to judge them because of their sexuality? It just does not make sense to me, and makes me so frustrated.
It's not as if gay men are going to come hit on you, guys. They aren't sex crazed monsters who are gonna rape you while talking funny and wearing sequin clothing or something. (That is the biggest complaint I hear from guys about the subject) They are people. Human beings. Exactly like everybody else, except they are attracted to the same gender. Is that a reason to hate somebody? I believe not, personally.
I also don't understand why, when somebody is homosexual, people refer to them as the gay person. I don't refer to my straight friends as "the straight girl" or whatever. Why judge somebody entirely on their sexuality? In all actuality, it is not a big deal. Most people's lives don't revolve around sex. Everybody has jobs, school, friends, hobbies, etc, etc.
I have seen too much violence and anger surrounding this. There is speculation one of my friends may be gay, and as soon as the subject was brought up with another friend, he got furious and said "that f** better stay away from me then. If he hits on me I will kill him." Funny, how they are best friends and all. I have also seen families broken up over, and parents feeling like failures because their child is gay. How is that a failure?
I dunno... I could say so much on this subject, but it just gets me fired up and pissed off. I don't understand why people can't just let somebody love who they want, and be with who they want, without experiencing so much hatred and intolerance.

As for the religious stand point... Ugh. Yes, it is your religion and all, but... I hate seeing others forced to live by other's beliefs. Doesn't your religion teach you to love and tolerate others? Meh, I dunno.

As for the gay marriage thing, I do not see what is wrong with it. Most of the homosexual couples getting married have been together for years upon years. If people desperately need to have something to fight about how it goes against the Bible or whatever, fight all these people getting quickie marriages (Like, being together for a month) and divorcing immediately after. Isn't that against the Bible too? Wouldn't you rather two adults in a long-term, loving relationship be together than some people getting drunk in vegas, marrying, and divorcing a week later?


Ugh, I dunno where I even went with this. I'm tired, and as I have said (I think), this subject gets me fired up.

I just think people have problems accepting it because it is against the 'norm' of society (as a lot of things are) and it used to be so hidden throughout the ages. That, or their religion condemns it.

Ok... I'm shutting up now. I truly am. Maybe I will post a better, thought out post later, instead of this jumbled mess.

I don't see why gay people would want to get married. If religion is against homosexuality, then homosexuals are not religious, so it's not something as trite as "god sealed their marriage" thing. So what is it? Just legal thing? Material reasons? Why would they want that?

Yeah, there are a lot of atheistic straight people getting married, but that's, well, kind of the same. Anyway, I don't see a reason for them to get married.

A show of commitment, although there are many religious homosexuals, as odd as it sounds. This is so retarded, it's just the way some people are, is having webbed feet right or wrong? And who is anyone here to determine if it is?

I'm throwing the religion ##### out the window in this post, because honestly, it got old about two thousand and eight years ago.

Pes, you mentioned animal nature, the survival instinct, procreation, etc. There is something wrong with your theory though:

Unlike many animals, humans have the ability to feel a wide array of emotions. If someone is gay, then they feel love for someone of their gender. If, by your theory, they deny themselves that; then most times they become depressed and that can lead to self-harm/suicide. Whether it happens or not is irrelevant.

The problem with people thinking 'procreation', is it completely contradicts them calling themselves higher thinking animals; because with those higher functions come more 'feelings'.

To say you have to right to feel one way but someone else can't feel differently is not only stupid, but dangerous.

I've got a few things to say about this. One, I definitely do not agree with homosexuality. It's not natural. Sure, their feelings may be natural, but it's just normal. Men and women were meant to be together, not people of the same gender (ahem, reproduction). Man and woman were MADE for each other, I don't know any other way to put it.

That's not to say I hate gays/homosexuals. Heck, some are even my friends. I love them just as much as anyone else, my feelings towards them do not change because of their sexuality. They are still people, and I will always love them as great friends; I just don't agree with that choice of lifestyle, that's all.

Though keep in mind, though I am a Christian, and knowing that you would undoubtedly think 'well, he just disagrees with it cause he's religious!' Even were I not a man of Christ, my feelings on this subject would not change. Period.

I've got gay friends, so that should explain most of my stance on this. There are other ways of showing commitment to one another other than marriage, but I would suspect it's fought for because of the more material aspects like any benefits of claiming you're a couple for....paperwork of some beneficial description. In any case while i'm happy for them and their choice, I still don't agree with same sex couples being allowed to adopt or use IVF to have a child.
It's not that they wouldn't necessarily be good parents, which judging by the people I know - they would be better parents than I could ever be. But I believe every child has the right to a mother and father...of the intended sexes.
We are not in a tolerable society for the larger part and that child could have a harder upbringing based purely on their parents, both from other kids at school and those brave outspoken shallow minded rednecks that feel a need to publicly (and loudly >_>) announce their disapproval of such behavior to the whole world - usually in front of the couple and a small crowd to make a point.
Plus there is the factor of 'Does having gay parents encourage the child to follow their example?', it's not proven nor dis-proven, and again whilst i'm not against gays...Jhonnyboy did make a good point...it isn't natural. Love might be natural yes, but being gay isn't. Just that simple.

What I am trying to say? Nature does not allow to homosexual humans to procreate. It is impossible. To humankind homosexuality might come across as normal (religions/gay haters exlcuded), or as something mankind has yet get used to, but there is no future with homosexuality.

In a doomsday scenario, the thrive to survive will be there. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand this.
On that bombshell, as you call it is colourfully: "to make babies, you need a man and a woman." Thus, if said scenario would happen, how would mankind procreate if all the surviving humans were homosexual. That is the point I am trying to make.



Emotions are irrelevant to evolution. I also don't understand where your post comes from.

Just to sidetrack and give a small information about the cutting down trees and we wont survive part from pes, when the global temperature climbs even higher, the trees actually keep the oxygen for themselves and give out carbon dioxide so by then, perhaps cutting the trees might be a good idea (or though they wont be able to provied shade no longer, contradicting ain't it =P?)

Back to topic, I dont think its wrong or unnatural and I think what pes meant earlier about the against the force of natural part meant that two man having the ability to reproduce is against the force of natural ( i misunderstood it =X)

[How many times have you heard stories about gay men having sex with a woman, so that 2 gay men can adopt the child?] <---- Pes this doesn't make much of sense either O.o;;;; and actually we are still evolving so if in the future two man can reproduce, it wont be much of a surprise.

To say that its unnatural is basically saying it doesn't occur in nature. It does. Quite often. In many different shapes and forms amongst 1500 different species.
I'm not going to go into it more because I already did in this thread.

One point I feel I must elaborate on is homosexuals who have kids already. Kids that aren't gay, of course. You see, the majority of gay guys who have kids didn't adopt them. They had them with women born from a previous marriage, not so much out of the desire to have children, but the desire to live a normal life. To "not be gay", despite the seemingly common knowledge that you can not change this. Its not a choice. Why would so many people across the nation choose this kind of life for themselves? To be shunned by their communities, their parents, their friends, their families? What? What about the gay people in Iran, who get KILLED for expressing their love? Do you honestly think they'd CHOOSE something like that? Did you choose to be straight?

Not that it wasn't my choice to both accept and embrace my own homosexuality, but it was already there. Its always been there since I was at least 9 years old. Take that lifestyle choice bullcrap somewhere where it belongs.




urrrrrrrrrghhhhhh....
Gay Marriage, my opinion on it being a total red herring besides the point, is being fought for simply because it would put homosexuals, and their relationships, on the same ground as heterosexuals. In other words, in both the eyes of the law and the world, us and our relationships are EQUAL. We would stop being second class citizens at that point, along with a few others.

And as far as adoption goes, that pisses me off. There are so many children absolutely stuck WITHOUT homes in adoption centers that they should let us adopt out of pure neccessity, let alone any other factor involved. Its better to grow up with two dads than no dads at all. This fear stems out of your peers and your peers alone. Would you do this? Would you let your kids make fun of a kid with two dads?
Change has to start somewhere. If we keep people subdued or stuck within their individual ruts simply out of fear for the unknown we would be nowhere right now.

As for it not being natural, well once again I won't elaborate because I already have.


I've said in a previous post, quoting you, that homosexuality has occured in roughly 10% of the human population since the beginning of time. Doomsday scenario or not, homosexuals have their individual place within their own tribe/community, they always have, and they always will.

Actually, it has been proven many times over that gay parents adopting is the same emotionally and while growing up the same as a heterosexual couple marrying. The only negative information regarding adoption is when a single person does so. A two parent family regardless of sexuality has been proven to have positive results!! There is zero proof that a child will try to be gay just because their parents are gay. Of course there are children who come out of gay homes as a gay person, but that is not because of their parent's influence.

I am obviously some one who feels that homosexuals are lacking civil rights. In the state of Florida, gay people are not allowed to adopt. The only state to still bar it. But, it has been proven over and over again that there are no negatives to a gay couple adopting children. There are too many children in need of a home for them to ban loving homes to children. In most of the country, excluding Mass and California, marriage is not allowed for a gay couple. New York is moving towards acceptance by recognizing out of state gay marriages at least, but it is not enough. (Even though, all states are supposed to accept marriages from other states according to our Constitution..) These people are being barred from basic civil rights such as a legal marriage. In many states, it is still legal to fire someone because of their sexuality! That is wrong!

Who cares what your personal beliefs are? That gives you no right in order to call homosexuals less than human.

Nature's argument is wrong. Nature prevents heterosexual couples from having kids too, should their marriages be broken because they are having trouble conceiving? Should married couples would use things like in-vitro fertilization have their marriage licenses revoked as well? Should married couples who choose not to reproduce have their marriage taken away? Most would say no to these questions, because they would violate these peoples civil rights, so why can't two men who can not reproduce be able to marry or be together?

First of all, my scenario is merely an example. I am not throwing in any statistics, or saying anything of the sort will happen.
I am just throwing in a scenario, a "what if...." situation.

"Since the beginning of time" is a rather big sentence. How can you be so certain that homosexuality existed since the beginning of time.
Besides, I never said homosexuality is a thing that was discovered recently and I believe I said this before.
However, your statement about homosexuality is stretched out of proportion. I am sorry, but to say that homosexuality existed since the beginning of time is more imaginary than my doomsday scenario, which was only a "what if" situation, whereas you make a statement.

I know its wikipedia, but this is well sourced and pretty accurate.
Read Here. The History of Homosexuality.

It basically reinforces my point, since at least the beginning of documented time. And I'm saying your "what-if" scenario is hardly a point to use in a practical debate. It doesn't add anything to the discussion besides confusing people and putting forward the point "only heterosexuals are capable of having children."
Which is, of course, ridiculously obvious by now.

I'm frustrated that you think homosexuals can contribute absolutely nothing to the world. I'm also frustrated that you believe that having children is the only reason that every individual human being exists. This is what your argument tells me. Whether you ACTUALLY believe this or not, is another story, one you seem to deny.

I have read that article before and it doesn't state anywhere that homosexuality exists since beginning of time.
Not trying to be picky, here, but it doesn't. However, I already agreed with you that it exists for a long time, so I am confused as to why you keep bringing this up.

And no, you're wrong. I am not saying anything of the kind.
If the world was homosexual, then mankind would be extinct. This has nothing to do with any opinion of anyone and I'm stunned that you try to shove this on to me. I didn't state an opinion, I stated a fact. All you do is accuse me of having an opinion that is apparently negative towards homosexuality, despite me saying on numerous occasions that it is not the case.

As a matter of fact, in my late teenager years I had a friend that was homosexual and to me it just seems that your frustration is build on solely speculation and assumptions.
So, to clarify myself once more, what people do in their private life, bedroom and sexual preference is none of my business and I don't care. If you're gay, you're gay, if not then you're not. It is that simple. I am not going to treat any different, you're not special or different in any way, to me you're just another human being.

How do you define "from the beginning of time" then? Or at least, the beginning of documented human time?
Seriously.
I'm saying this to reinforce my point that homosexuality will always exist, because it always has. In a minority of the human population, of course. Its not something that is going away, period. I couldn't make my point more blunt than this.


I never implied nor suggested that the world should be homosexual, nor that the world WOULD be homosexual. I don't know how you came to this conclusion, nor why you're even bringing it up.

I also didn't say you believed these things, I'm saying your argument and your points suggest them.
the bolded part is important.
Once again, I ask, what are you arguing? With your words of wisdom, that is, "Humankind wouldn't exist if the world was homosexual.", Why are you saying it? What point are you trying to make here?

I forget the exact fallacy, but some people disapprove of homosexuality because of the biblical evidence, not any intrinsic malice or distaste for homosexuals. You shouldn't use that argument.
The sum of the law and the prophets = Love God with all your body, mind, soul, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Sodom and Gomorrah was probably about every bad deed in the book. An interesting verse though from Jesus about Marriage.
I'm paraphrasing it, because I don't remember verses and chapters well.
(Some cannot get married because they were born that way, some cannot because men made them that way, others for the sake of the kingdom of God, but those who can keep this teaching keep it.) He notes how hard of a teaching it is.
I wish I could remember exactly where it is..

It's a hard balance really, but that's life. Some get caught up in legalism, others cater to man rather than God.
It's hard for me to say it's natural, but since it isn't controlled, I would concede to it if shown convincing evidence. It's just not normal. But I wonder, is my condition natural?

You don't need to wonder. All of the answers are around you. Myths don't give answers.

I believe you don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't think having children is a human beings only purpose. We decide our own purpose. It's up to the person whether they choose have to children or not, not some form of mandatory thing. Of course that's the only way to keep the human race going and most people have kids anyway because most want to. Not to keep the race going but to make something in your own image that you can cherish and love.

Anyways, I'd like to know why some religious people are so uptight about homosexuality in the first place. It may be going against their beliefs but so what? Just let them be. According to the religion they're just supposedly hurting themselves anyway right?