Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehe, Mystic...an ugly curse, one man can be gay but if the whole town's gay then its time for condemning? Heterosexual men chose to dick down men rather than an ugly woman(really....really)? Makes you wonder how the ugly women of the world seem to get laid so easily in any town -other than- this pretend one.

I'd say that trumps the bibles line on ridiculous and complicatory (wewt...if webster can do it so can I) bullshit alone, and doesn't make the job of justifying whatever action or position is to be taken any easier. The bible handles it pretty simply- they offend god, fuck em up. Both are absurd, mind you, I just can't honestly decide between the two which I should point and laugh at the hardest. I think that maybe your opinion of which narrative is easier to justify hinges on your upbringing and familiarity., rather than any sort of dry appraisal of each relative to each other. Christians probably think that the bible is easier to justify than the quran. I'd also add that many christians seem to approach the OT alot like muslims seem to approach the hadiths, from a practical standpoint. The NT is their quran, the OT is sideline literature, full of "good ideas" but not the final word.

[Losty]

I don't understand the poll. I didn't vote.

Queers have a right to be queer. Being queer goes against nature, it is not healthy and normal behavior for the most part. I don't believe in homosexual marriage. But I think committed homosexuals should be given the right that married couples get.

That is my opinion on queers.

Religion?

It is all man-made gibberish. As such they make up the rules as they go. If they don't become homosexual loving in nature, too much $ will leave their coffers. They must adapt and embrace homosexuals or die.

Ugh :vomit:

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't understand the poll. I didn't vote.

Queers have a right to be queer. Being queer goes against nature, it is not healthy and normal behavior for the most part. I don't believe in homosexual marriage. But I think committed homosexuals should be given the right that married couples get.

That is my opinion on queers.

Religion?

It is all man-made gibberish. As such they make up the rules as they go. If they don't become homosexual loving in nature, too much $ will leave their coffers. They must adapt and embrace homosexuals or die.

Can't say I've seen a lot of homophobic atheists, you might be the first.

[TheGulegon]

I don't understand the poll. I didn't vote.

Queers have a right to be queer. Being queer goes against nature, it is not healthy and normal behavior for the most part. I don't believe in homosexual marriage. But I think committed homosexuals should be given the right that married couples get.

That is my opinion on queers.

Religion?

It is all man-made gibberish. As such they make up the rules as they go. If they don't become homosexual loving in nature, too much $ will leave their coffers. They must adapt and embrace homosexuals or die.

You've never seen 2 male dogs humping one another? It's completely natural! And as far as "healthy" is concerned, life threatening pregnancies will never come about due to gay sex, so...
Huh???

[Esquilax]

I don't understand the poll. I didn't vote.

Queers have a right to be queer. Being queer goes against nature, it is not healthy and normal behavior for the most part. I don't believe in homosexual marriage. But I think committed homosexuals should be given the right that married couples get.

That is my opinion on queers.

It's also a factually incorrect opinion: plenty of animals have been observed exhibiting homosexual behaviors, so the claim that it's "against nature," is literally wrong. As for "normal" behavior, I would suggest that when something is a persistent, lifelong trait that has existed for almost- if not entirely- all of human culture and transcends species boundaries, that it's about as normal as anything else we do. Certainly more normal than, say, pumpkin spice, which I assume you have no moral objection to?

Given your cavalierly homophobic language and the easy way in which you spout obviously incorrect assertions as fact, I don't know whether being corrected is even possible for you, but... we'll see. The facts don't fit your opinion; I wonder which you'll attempt to change?

[CristW]

CristW, copying theists' tactics of Insulting our intelligence when he doesnt agree.

YOU MEANT:

(CristW: copying theists' tactics, of insulting our intelligence, when he doesn't agree.)

My Answer: No I am not insulting anyone's intelligence. I clearly intended to apply fairness in my recent post.

[rexbeccarox]

CristW, copying theists' tactics of Insulting our intelligence when he doesnt agree.

YOU MEANT:

(CristW: copying theists' tactics, of insulting our intelligence, when he doesn't agree.)

My Answer: No I am not insulting anyone's intelligence. I clearly intended to apply fairness in my recent post.

(bold mine)

Oh yeah... crystal.

The lack of any scholarly "groundwork", on this thread, is not really surprising based on my experience on this website.

Clearly.

[CristW]

Here is to prove my point with the previous person who tried to define bi-sexuality -

Attracted to men + Attracted to women = Bi-sexual
Sexual intercourse with men + Sexual intercourse with women = Bi-sexual

What is the difference of the above example, the previous poster implied?

Well, it is simply through an act which defines it. The previous example would be a proper...case study or rather illustration of the importance of (final) act to determine sexual orientation.

Despite the studies on homosexuality, the category of sexual orientation really is determined by the act.

If you separate the act from orientation, then what is suggested is like saying a man who rapes another man in prison is still defined in society as a heterosexual. Furthermore, the homosexual act makes that man a homosexual not a heterosexual.

The one who was raped is still a heterosexual. What is the difference? CONSENT!

If a heterosexual man rapes a heterosexual woman then it is rape. There is an absence of consent by both parties.

This is why the (final)Act is important to determine sexual orientation.

One thing is sexual "attraction" always lead to the act. But what if many individuals could not determine what is "attraction"? Sometimes, "attraction" is misidentified and it may be hero worship or another social phenomenon.

As for legislation against gay ... ACTS. These acts are natural, not because solely, throughout nature. The many past scholars and philosophers who were defining "natural rights" derived their conclusions through a religious prism rather than through a scientific and critical analysis of their surroundings. Through the religious prism; lies a truthful category, the results in society of sentient thinking beings,i.e. laws. These laws are not solely the results of "religion" but rather secular social interactions which have made society functional. The previous is an indication of sentiency for a thinking species. The whole difference between animals and the human race on this planet.

Therefore, homosexuals have inherent natural rights and any legislation against their "rights"(to act in a homosexual manner in society) would counter the progressive trend in society.

[One Above All]

CristW, why did you not "choose" to be homosexual? This is a serious question, by the way. Hopefully it'll help you understand why you're wrong about what sexuality is.

[Losty]

I feel like the exact opposite is true.

Being sexually attracted to men and women = bisexual.

Having sexual intercourse with both men and women does not necessarily = bisexual.