Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

dialog with homophobs

Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 2:11:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I live in a society which has homosexuals and there are homo's. here, it is banned.

there are homophobs or people who are against it, I want to ask you: why are you against them. I am not gay or I am not bisexual but I am not against them. it is their private life why do you care them? I am not judging you but I just wanted to know.

their organs(!) belongs just to them. share your ideas please.

no true's and false's in this topic, just opinions.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 9:15:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with Jews. It's just everything about them I have a problem with. Stop calling me an anti-Semite!!! Hurr durr reverse oppressions bros...

If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them.

Stop pretending like literally anyone cares.

However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings,

Wut

they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA),

So?

they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings,"

So?

and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters.

That's not a bad thing. Plus yer wrong. Openly gay LGBTQ+ characters make up around 2% of television characters, arguably a smaller number than actually exist.

We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful,

Which is stupid. You should feel stupid.

but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay.

Because it is and not accepting this literally ends lives.

You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Who says univers tolerance is a good thing? I tolerate it when I get cut off in traffic. I don't tolerate pitiful wastes of space.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 12:27:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 2:11:00 AM, Artur wrote:
I live in a society which has homosexuals and there are homo's. here, it is banned.

there are homophobs or people who are against it, I want to ask you: why are you against them. I am not gay or I am not bisexual but I am not against them. it is their private life why do you care them? I am not judging you but I just wanted to know.

their organs(!) belongs just to them. share your ideas please.

no true's and false's in this topic, just opinions.

I am ambivalent to what homophobes think, because their opinions are not sufficient to dictate other's rights.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 3:13:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 12:27:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:11:00 AM, Artur wrote:
I live in a society which has homosexuals and there are homo's. here, it is banned.

there are homophobs or people who are against it, I want to ask you: why are you against them. I am not gay or I am not bisexual but I am not against them. it is their private life why do you care them? I am not judging you but I just wanted to know.

their organs(!) belongs just to them. share your ideas please.

no true's and false's in this topic, just opinions.

I am ambivalent to what homophobes think, because their opinions are not sufficient to dictate other's rights.

No but freedom of opinion!!! It's their opinion man. Stop making them feel stooooopid.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 5:26:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 9:15:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with Jews. It's just everything about them I have a problem with. Stop calling me an anti-Semite!!! Hurr durr reverse oppressions bros...

If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them.

Stop pretending like literally anyone cares.

However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings,

Wut

they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA),

So?

they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings,"

So?

and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters.

That's not a bad thing. Plus yer wrong. Openly gay LGBTQ+ characters make up around 2% of television characters, arguably a smaller number than actually exist.

We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful,

Which is stupid. You should feel stupid.

but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay.

Because it is and not accepting this literally ends lives.

You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Who says univers tolerance is a good thing? I tolerate it when I get cut off in traffic. I don't tolerate pitiful wastes of space.

I would've posted more earlier, but I was using a tablet with only a touch screen, and I was only using one hand. Anyhow, I will start out with your Jewish example. If you hated Judaism, but not Judaistic adherents, you'd be hating the religion, not its followers. Same principle applies with homosexuality, with the exception of a few people who actually hate gay people. That's strike one.
You then say, "stop pretending like literally anyone cares." Well, plenty of people do care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be defending your position. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Strike two.
Google "examples of pastors who are sued by gays" and you'll see something labeled "Churches fear lawsuits for refusing gay weddings." Check it out. That's strike three.
By the way, the Boy Scouts of America is strongly influenced by Christianity, evidenced by the fact it is sponsored mostly by church organizations. Conservative church organizations, if I might add. Isn't it slightly wrong for openly gay kids to enter an organization that is anti-gay, or as you might put it, "homophobic?" Why don't they form a "Gay Scouts of America" and exclude straight members?
Them forcing conservative Christians to bake their wedding cakes and taking photos for their weddings, it's happened.
As for the thing about gay characters on television, you might be right there.
You then said, "You should feel stupid." I'll just ignore that one.
You then said that homosexuality's okay and that not accepting it ends lives. Well, I don't acknowledge that behavior as okay but I've yet to kill anyone.
Finally, you said universal tolerance is a not necessarily good. So who determines what should be tolerated and what doesn't?
That's more than three strikes and you've struck out.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 7:17:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 9:15:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

I would disagree on this point. That is not the definition of the word, that is a smear and slander tactic. Phobic (from phobia) means morbid fear, used in the form of an anxiety disorder rooted in said morbid fear, being against something does not mean that you have a morbid fear of it.

Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with Jews. It's just everything about them I have a problem with. Stop calling me an anti-Semite!!! Hurr durr reverse oppressions bros...

If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them.

Stop pretending like literally anyone cares.

However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings,

Wut

they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA),

So?

they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings,"

So?

and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters.

That's not a bad thing. Plus yer wrong. Openly gay LGBTQ+ characters make up around 2% of television characters, arguably a smaller number than actually exist.

This I would also question. While the population of gays is closer to about 5%, not all gays are openly gay. There are a significant number of people that don't let their sexuality define them. Dumbledore is a perfect example.


We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful,

Which is stupid. You should feel stupid.

but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay.

Because it is and not accepting this literally ends lives.

You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Who says univers tolerance is a good thing? I tolerate it when I get cut off in traffic. I don't tolerate pitiful wastes of space.

I assume that most of this is just rampped up to get a reply and if a reply is generated, you'll get into more reasonable responses.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 7:31:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Homophobe" is a political term used by homosexual advocates.
Here is the legit medical term for reference:

homophobia
Type: Term

Pronunciation: h!3;R42;m!3;-f!3;R42;bē-ă

Definitions:
1. Irrational fear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, behaviors, or people.


http://www.medilexicon.com...

There is no irrationality or fear involved. Only logic.

1- Sexual orientation =/= Sexual behavior

Believing otherwise is the first pitfall.

Orientation is a subjective preference or a state of mind that is normally not consciously chosen. All states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent the person's behavior.
Perhabs homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal on that aspect, but so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Thoughts and feelings have no implications and they are not judged.

Sexual behaviors are conscious unless rape is involved. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior; it is impossible to identify someone as homosexual unless the person hinDesire does not provide justification for behavior, otherwise every single behavior including murder can be justified. Society either requires or encourages people to suppress harmful behavior for the common good.

2- Equality & "Born this way"

No. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
By believing otherwise you are suppressing a basic fundamental truth about being a human.

You see, heterosexuality is immutable. Every single human, with the exception of hermaphrodites, are either males or females with their respective reproductive system.
Any sexual feeling or desire is rooted within chemicals and processes in that heterosexual design.
Therefore, heterosexuality is an objective physical reality.

For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals need to have their own physiology or gender. The truth is, homosexuals are human beings, who are unchangeably heterosexual, who identify themselves with engaging or the desire to engage in same-sex conduct.

Biologically, homosexuals are not different than thousands of other paraphilia like pedophilia or bestiality. In the end they are heterosexual by design.

Then there is the "We are born this way"!
First of all, there is no scientific evidence other than outdated refuted studies from the 20th century. It is simply pseudo-science, a legal and political strategy.
Second of all, it doesn't matter. Nobody except people sucked into political agendas believe in biological determinism. Unless you have an extremely severe mental illness, you have the freedom of choice.

3- Civil rights & Marriage

Isn't it insulting to compare a cultural behavior to the oppression black people had?
Were homosexuals hunted, captured, decapitated, traded, forced into servitude, or placed in zoos?

Regardless. Homosexuals are citizens, they have all the obligations and rights as the person next door.
Civil right discrimination is treating equal parties unequally. As demonstrated above, they are equal as human beings. However, behavior is not included in civil rights.
Homosexuality is not objective and potentially changeable; there is no blood or DNA test that proves someone to be a homosexual. In fact, it would be impossible to tell whether someone is homosexual except by witnessing homosexual behavior or the person associates self with the said behavior.

And before someone brings up "Hate crimes pandemic!"...

According to the 2011 FBI hate crime report: http://www.fbi.gov... 1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes.
If we excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.
According to NCAVP which is a pro-homosexual organization:
avp.org/resources/reports/term/summary
The reported domestic/partner violence among homosexuals in 2011 is about 3930.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% more likely to receive violence amongst themselves than immature thugs in 2011. Epidemic.

I am astonished when those pushing political agenda focus on pushing hate crime laws (Punching a homosexual is a bigger offense than punching a grandmother since citizens don't deserve equal protection) when murder and theft statistics are massively larger.

Regarding marriage, I will only discuss it in legal terms.
First of all, the law does not care about love. You want to love? No body is stopping you: Go love your family, friends, partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that says "In love".

Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

Furthermore, by recognizing a private behavior, the government promotes it which is unreasonable since if it is not innate, then it is acquired. Homosexuals accounted for more than 80% of the AIDS diagnosis in 2011.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf

I hope this cleared up the main objections. Thanks for reading.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 8:04:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 7:31:29 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"Homophobe" is a political term used by homosexual advocates.
Here is the legit medical term for reference:

homophobia
Type: Term

Pronunciation: h!3;R42;m!3;-f!3;R42;bē-ă

Definitions:
1. Irrational fear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, behaviors, or people.


http://www.medilexicon.com...


There is no irrationality or fear involved. Only logic.

1- Sexual orientation =/= Sexual behavior

Believing otherwise is the first pitfall.

Orientation is a subjective preference or a state of mind that is normally not consciously chosen. All states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent the person's behavior.
Perhabs homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal on that aspect, but so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Thoughts and feelings have no implications and they are not judged.

Sexual behaviors are conscious unless rape is involved. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior; it is impossible to identify someone as homosexual unless the person hinDesire does not provide justification for behavior, otherwise every single behavior including murder can be justified. Society either requires or encourages people to suppress harmful behavior for the common good.

2- Equality & "Born this way"

No. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
By believing otherwise you are suppressing a basic fundamental truth about being a human.

You see, heterosexuality is immutable. Every single human, with the exception of hermaphrodites, are either males or females with their respective reproductive system.
Any sexual feeling or desire is rooted within chemicals and processes in that heterosexual design.
Therefore, heterosexuality is an objective physical reality.

For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals need to have their own physiology or gender. The truth is, homosexuals are human beings, who are unchangeably heterosexual, who identify themselves with engaging or the desire to engage in same-sex conduct.

Biologically, homosexuals are not different than thousands of other paraphilia like pedophilia or bestiality. In the end they are heterosexual by design.


Then there is the "We are born this way"!
First of all, there is no scientific evidence other than outdated refuted studies from the 20th century. It is simply pseudo-science, a legal and political strategy.
Second of all, it doesn't matter. Nobody except people sucked into political agendas believe in biological determinism. Unless you have an extremely severe mental illness, you have the freedom of choice.


3- Civil rights & Marriage

Isn't it insulting to compare a cultural behavior to the oppression black people had?
Were homosexuals hunted, captured, decapitated, traded, forced into servitude, or placed in zoos?


Regardless. Homosexuals are citizens, they have all the obligations and rights as the person next door.
Civil right discrimination is treating equal parties unequally. As demonstrated above, they are equal as human beings. However, behavior is not included in civil rights.
Homosexuality is not objective and potentially changeable; there is no blood or DNA test that proves someone to be a homosexual. In fact, it would be impossible to tell whether someone is homosexual except by witnessing homosexual behavior or the person associates self with the said behavior.

And before someone brings up "Hate crimes pandemic!"...

According to the 2011 FBI hate crime report: http://www.fbi.gov... 1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes.
If we excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.
According to NCAVP which is a pro-homosexual organization:
avp.org/resources/reports/term/summary
The reported domestic/partner violence among homosexuals in 2011 is about 3930.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% more likely to receive violence amongst themselves than immature thugs in 2011. Epidemic.

I am astonished when those pushing political agenda focus on pushing hate crime laws (Punching a homosexual is a bigger offense than punching a grandmother since citizens don't deserve equal protection) when murder and theft statistics are massively larger.


Regarding marriage, I will only discuss it in legal terms.
First of all, the law does not care about love. You want to love? No body is stopping you: Go love your family, friends, partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that says "In love".


Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

Furthermore, by recognizing a private behavior, the government promotes it which is unreasonable since if it is not innate, then it is acquired. Homosexuals accounted for more than 80% of the AIDS diagnosis in 2011.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf


I hope this cleared up the main objections. Thanks for reading.

This is the kind of stuff that ought to posted on these forums more often.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 3:18:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 7:17:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/27/2013 9:15:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

I would disagree on this point. That is not the definition of the word, that is a smear and slander tactic. Phobic (from phobia) means morbid fear, used in the form of an anxiety disorder rooted in said morbid fear, being against something does not mean that you have a morbid fear of it.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Multiple definitions brah.

and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters.

That's not a bad thing. Plus yer wrong. Openly gay LGBTQ+ characters make up around 2% of television characters, arguably a smaller number than actually exist.

This I would also question. While the population of gays is closer to about 5%, not all gays are openly gay. There are a significant number of people that don't let their sexuality define them. Dumbledore is a perfect example.

1) My bad, it's actually 3.3. percent [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...]
2) Being openly gay =/= being defined by one's sexuality. The overwhelming majority of those depicted in media are "openly straight" but the charge is never really leveled at them.
3) I was responding to the OP's charge that (a) openly gay people are represented everywhere in media and (b) that that's a bad thing. They're not exactly everywhere, they're simply depicted.
4) Off topic but don't get me started on the Dumbledore thing. It always annoyed me that his sexuality was only canonized outside of the text.

You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Who says univers tolerance is a good thing? I tolerate it when I get cut off in traffic. I don't tolerate pitiful wastes of space.

I assume that most of this is just rampped up to get a reply and if a reply is generated, you'll get into more reasonable responses.

Meh. The kid annoyed me.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 3:30:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 5:26:08 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:


I would've posted more earlier, but I was using a tablet with only a touch screen, and I was only using one hand. Anyhow, I will start out with your Jewish example. If you hated Judaism, but not Judaistic adherents, you'd be hating the religion, not its followers. Same principle applies with homosexuality, with the exception of a few people who actually hate gay people. That's strike one.

The thought of straight people being openly straight disgusts me. But hey noh8.

You then say, "stop pretending like literally anyone cares." Well, plenty of people do care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be defending your position. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Strike two.
Google "examples of pastors who are sued by gays" and you'll see something labeled "Churches fear lawsuits for refusing gay weddings." Check it out. That's strike three.

Link.

By the way, the Boy Scouts of America is strongly influenced by Christianity, evidenced by the fact it is sponsored mostly by church organizations. Conservative church organizations, if I might add. Isn't it slightly wrong for openly gay kids to enter an organization that is anti-gay, or as you might put it, "homophobic?" Why don't they form a "Gay Scouts of America" and exclude straight members?

1) The BSA has clearly tended to be Christian influenced. My question is why that matters. Plenty of churches aren't homophobic and tend to be accepting of LGBTQ people.
2) Isn't it slightly wrong for an organization to be anti-gay in the first place? Changing those policies and opinions is a better course of action than simply ignoring them and/or separating off to perpetuate this ridiculous exclusivism.

Them forcing conservative Christians to bake their wedding cakes and taking photos for their weddings, it's happened.

Ok.

As for the thing about gay characters on television, you might be right there.

I am.

You then said, "You should feel stupid." I'll just ignore that one.

I stand by my comment.

You then said that homosexuality's okay and that not accepting it ends lives. Well, I don't acknowledge that behavior as okay but I've yet to kill anyone.

http://www.jeramyt.org...

Finally, you said universal tolerance is a not necessarily good. So who determines what should be tolerated and what doesn't?

Give me a reason why homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated and we can go from there.

That's more than three strikes and you've struck out.

Passe.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 3:52:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 3:30:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:26:08 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:


I would've posted more earlier, but I was using a tablet with only a touch screen, and I was only using one hand. Anyhow, I will start out with your Jewish example. If you hated Judaism, but not Judaistic adherents, you'd be hating the religion, not its followers. Same principle applies with homosexuality, with the exception of a few people who actually hate gay people. That's strike one.

The thought of straight people being openly straight disgusts me. But hey noh8.

You then say, "stop pretending like literally anyone cares." Well, plenty of people do care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be defending your position. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Strike two.
Google "examples of pastors who are sued by gays" and you'll see something labeled "Churches fear lawsuits for refusing gay weddings." Check it out. That's strike three.

Link.

By the way, the Boy Scouts of America is strongly influenced by Christianity, evidenced by the fact it is sponsored mostly by church organizations. Conservative church organizations, if I might add. Isn't it slightly wrong for openly gay kids to enter an organization that is anti-gay, or as you might put it, "homophobic?" Why don't they form a "Gay Scouts of America" and exclude straight members?

1) The BSA has clearly tended to be Christian influenced. My question is why that matters. Plenty of churches aren't homophobic and tend to be accepting of LGBTQ people.
2) Isn't it slightly wrong for an organization to be anti-gay in the first place? Changing those policies and opinions is a better course of action than simply ignoring them and/or separating off to perpetuate this ridiculous exclusivism.

Them forcing conservative Christians to bake their wedding cakes and taking photos for their weddings, it's happened.

Ok.

As for the thing about gay characters on television, you might be right there.

I am.

You then said, "You should feel stupid." I'll just ignore that one.

I stand by my comment.

You then said that homosexuality's okay and that not accepting it ends lives. Well, I don't acknowledge that behavior as okay but I've yet to kill anyone.

http://www.jeramyt.org...

Finally, you said universal tolerance is a not necessarily good. So who determines what should be tolerated and what doesn't?

Give me a reason why homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated and we can go from there.

That's more than three strikes and you've struck out.

Passe.

Before I begin, in an earlier post, phobia was defined as 1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
If this is what a phobia is, homophobia does not exist because it is not an irrational fear.

First, you asked for a link. I don't know how to post links, so I'd advise you merely to google it.
Then, you have stated that many churches have accepted homosexuality as normal. However, it is a contradiction of Biblical principles for a Christian to accept this as normal. It's often pointed out that Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but that is because he was sent to the Jews, and there were very few (if any) gay Jews back then. Later on in the New Testament homosexuality is mentioned, and it's portrayed negatively.
According to the principles of Christianity, excluding openly gay people from Christian organizations is not immoral. It is not illegal either. If you're black, try entering a White Skinhead group. They'll exclude you because you're black, and it's not illegal. Likewise, if you're white try joining a Black Supremacist organization (a few exist). They'll exclude you because you're white and it's not illegal.
Then you provided a link showing an article on GLBT suicide. But it could be argued they killed themselves in contrast to other people killing them.
Finally, you said "Give me a reason why homosexuality should not be tolerated and we can go from there." I am not implying the usage of shock therapy, insane asylums, or stoning on GLBT people. Such a thing would be barbaric. I freely admit that they are people like everyone else and they have the rights to live and be free. However, so do alcoholics and drug addicts and gambling addicts. The point is, Christians, because their religion declares homosexuality to be sinful, should reserve the right to exclude gays from Christian organizations and institutions. Marriage is not Christianity-exclusive, but it is an important part of many religions. It is deeply tied to religion, and most older religions have a problem with gayness.
P.S. The Eleventh Doctor is dead.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 3:58:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 3:52:16 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 12/29/2013 3:30:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:26:08 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:


I would've posted more earlier, but I was using a tablet with only a touch screen, and I was only using one hand. Anyhow, I will start out with your Jewish example. If you hated Judaism, but not Judaistic adherents, you'd be hating the religion, not its followers. Same principle applies with homosexuality, with the exception of a few people who actually hate gay people. That's strike one.

The thought of straight people being openly straight disgusts me. But hey noh8.

You then say, "stop pretending like literally anyone cares." Well, plenty of people do care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be defending your position. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Strike two.
Google "examples of pastors who are sued by gays" and you'll see something labeled "Churches fear lawsuits for refusing gay weddings." Check it out. That's strike three.

Link.

By the way, the Boy Scouts of America is strongly influenced by Christianity, evidenced by the fact it is sponsored mostly by church organizations. Conservative church organizations, if I might add. Isn't it slightly wrong for openly gay kids to enter an organization that is anti-gay, or as you might put it, "homophobic?" Why don't they form a "Gay Scouts of America" and exclude straight members?

1) The BSA has clearly tended to be Christian influenced. My question is why that matters. Plenty of churches aren't homophobic and tend to be accepting of LGBTQ people.
2) Isn't it slightly wrong for an organization to be anti-gay in the first place? Changing those policies and opinions is a better course of action than simply ignoring them and/or separating off to perpetuate this ridiculous exclusivism.

Them forcing conservative Christians to bake their wedding cakes and taking photos for their weddings, it's happened.

Ok.

As for the thing about gay characters on television, you might be right there.

I am.

You then said, "You should feel stupid." I'll just ignore that one.

I stand by my comment.

You then said that homosexuality's okay and that not accepting it ends lives. Well, I don't acknowledge that behavior as okay but I've yet to kill anyone.

http://www.jeramyt.org...

Finally, you said universal tolerance is a not necessarily good. So who determines what should be tolerated and what doesn't?

Give me a reason why homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated and we can go from there.

That's more than three strikes and you've struck out.

Passe.

Can you pl0x learn2 quote correctly.

Before I begin, in an earlier post, phobia was defined as 1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
If this is what a phobia is, homophobia does not exist because it is not an irrational fear.

I already linked and defined a phobia in an earlier post. Refer to that.

First, you asked for a link. I don't know how to post links, so I'd advise you merely to google it.

How old are you per chance?

Then, you have stated that many churches have accepted homosexuality as normal. However, it is a contradiction of Biblical principles for a Christian to accept this as normal. It's often pointed out that Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but that is because he was sent to the Jews, and there were very few (if any) gay Jews back then. Later on in the New Testament homosexuality is mentioned, and it's portrayed negatively.

I don't care if it's contradictory. I happen to disagree with the idea that Christianity and homosexuality are antagonistic but it's irrelevent here. I'm pointing out that the social shift in acceptance of homosexuality scales back yer concern for the BSA allowing openly gay scouts.

According to the principles of Christianity, excluding openly gay people from Christian organizations is not immoral. It is not illegal either. If you're black, try entering a White Skinhead group. They'll exclude you because you're black, and it's not illegal. Likewise, if you're white try joining a Black Supremacist organization (a few exist). They'll exclude you because you're white and it's not illegal.

Are you saying Christians are White Supremacists?

Then you provided a link showing an article on GLBT suicide. But it could be argued they killed themselves in contrast to other people killing them.

http://media.tumblr.com...

Finally, you said "Give me a reason why homosexuality should not be tolerated and we can go from there." I am not implying the usage of shock therapy, insane asylums, or stoning on GLBT people. Such a thing would be barbaric. I freely admit that they are people like everyone else and they have the rights to live and be free. However, so do alcoholics and drug addicts and gambling addicts. The point is, Christians, because their religion declares homosexuality to be sinful, should reserve the right to exclude gays from Christian organizations and institutions.

http://media.tumblr.com...

Marriage is not Christianity-exclusive, but it is an important part of many religions. It is deeply tied to religion, and most older religions have a problem with gayness.

So?
P.S. The Eleventh Doctor is dead.

P.s.s. don't play with my emotions.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 4:54:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 3:58:58 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/29/2013 3:52:16 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 12/29/2013 3:30:03 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:26:08 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:


I would've posted more earlier, but I was using a tablet with only a touch screen, and I was only using one hand. Anyhow, I will start out with your Jewish example. If you hated Judaism, but not Judaistic adherents, you'd be hating the religion, not its followers. Same principle applies with homosexuality, with the exception of a few people who actually hate gay people. That's strike one.

The thought of straight people being openly straight disgusts me. But hey noh8.

You then say, "stop pretending like literally anyone cares." Well, plenty of people do care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be defending your position. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have posted in the first place. Strike two.
Google "examples of pastors who are sued by gays" and you'll see something labeled "Churches fear lawsuits for refusing gay weddings." Check it out. That's strike three.

Link.

By the way, the Boy Scouts of America is strongly influenced by Christianity, evidenced by the fact it is sponsored mostly by church organizations. Conservative church organizations, if I might add. Isn't it slightly wrong for openly gay kids to enter an organization that is anti-gay, or as you might put it, "homophobic?" Why don't they form a "Gay Scouts of America" and exclude straight members?

1) The BSA has clearly tended to be Christian influenced. My question is why that matters. Plenty of churches aren't homophobic and tend to be accepting of LGBTQ people.
2) Isn't it slightly wrong for an organization to be anti-gay in the first place? Changing those policies and opinions is a better course of action than simply ignoring them and/or separating off to perpetuate this ridiculous exclusivism.

Them forcing conservative Christians to bake their wedding cakes and taking photos for their weddings, it's happened.

Ok.

As for the thing about gay characters on television, you might be right there.

I am.

You then said, "You should feel stupid." I'll just ignore that one.

I stand by my comment.

You then said that homosexuality's okay and that not accepting it ends lives. Well, I don't acknowledge that behavior as okay but I've yet to kill anyone.

http://www.jeramyt.org...

Finally, you said universal tolerance is a not necessarily good. So who determines what should be tolerated and what doesn't?

Give me a reason why homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated and we can go from there.

That's more than three strikes and you've struck out.

Passe.

Can you pl0x learn2 quote correctly.

Before I begin, in an earlier post, phobia was defined as 1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
If this is what a phobia is, homophobia does not exist because it is not an irrational fear.

I already linked and defined a phobia in an earlier post. Refer to that.

First, you asked for a link. I don't know how to post links, so I'd advise you merely to google it.

How old are you per chance?

Then, you have stated that many churches have accepted homosexuality as normal. However, it is a contradiction of Biblical principles for a Christian to accept this as normal. It's often pointed out that Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but that is because he was sent to the Jews, and there were very few (if any) gay Jews back then. Later on in the New Testament homosexuality is mentioned, and it's portrayed negatively.

I don't care if it's contradictory. I happen to disagree with the idea that Christianity and homosexuality are antagonistic but it's irrelevent here. I'm pointing out that the social shift in acceptance of homosexuality scales back yer concern for the BSA allowing openly gay scouts.

According to the principles of Christianity, excluding openly gay people from Christian organizations is not immoral. It is not illegal either. If you're black, try entering a White Skinhead group. They'll exclude you because you're black, and it's not illegal. Likewise, if you're white try joining a Black Supremacist organization (a few exist). They'll exclude you because you're white and it's not illegal.

Are you saying Christians are White Supremacists?

Then you provided a link showing an article on GLBT suicide. But it could be argued they killed themselves in contrast to other people killing them.

http://media.tumblr.com...

Finally, you said "Give me a reason why homosexuality should not be tolerated and we can go from there." I am not implying the usage of shock therapy, insane asylums, or stoning on GLBT people. Such a thing would be barbaric. I freely admit that they are people like everyone else and they have the rights to live and be free. However, so do alcoholics and drug addicts and gambling addicts. The point is, Christians, because their religion declares homosexuality to be sinful, should reserve the right to exclude gays from Christian organizations and institutions.

http://media.tumblr.com...

Marriage is not Christianity-exclusive, but it is an important part of many religions. It is deeply tied to religion, and most older religions have a problem with gayness.

So?
P.S. The Eleventh Doctor is dead.

P.s.s. don't play with my emotions.

First, you said something about definitions. I did draw that definition from an earlier post. And as for the next question, I am one of those few young people who don't know how to post links.
Then, you mentioned the social shift in acceptance for homosexuality. But alas, the Bible was written 2000 years ago and no books have been added since Revelation. That means unless another book of the Bible is added (and its legitimacy would most certainly be in question), the basic principles of Christianity remain the same, regardless of social shifts.
And no, Christians are not White Supremacists. There are Christians of every different race. My point is that excluding certain kinds of people from an organization is not illegal, nor is it unconstitutional. There are women's book clubs, men's tennis, alcoholics anonymous, and plenty of other institutions that only admit certain kinds of people.
As for your final statement, "Don't play with my emotions," are you referring to all my comments on this forum or my reference to the Eleventh Doctor being dead? If you're referring to the first, people with an anti-gay stance were specifically called to this forum. As for the Eleventh Doctor being dead, it's true. He died in the recent Christmas special and the Twelfth Doctor is the new doctor.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 6:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The OA to this thread asks why anyone who isn't LGBT should care about specifically LGBT issues. I really can't answer this because I don't know. But it seems personally relevant to them.

So why would someone who isn't interested in gardening have any passionate opinions about the best way to grow azaleas in sandy loam soil? Why would someone who really couldn't care less about crochet have long, detailed discussions about what the bible says about the proper way to tie off a string of yarn?
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 10:49:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

I thought that there was not a person on this good green earth that does not sin. Why are you ok with one type of sinner to shoot the wedding pics but not another type of sinner? All hetrosexual photographers need to either be married or sign an affidavit that they are not having sex out of wedlock?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 11:04:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 7:31:29 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"Homophobe" is a political term used by homosexual advocates.
Here is the legit medical term for reference:

homophobia
Type: Term

Pronunciation: h!3;R42;m!3;-f!3;R42;bē-ă

Definitions:
1. Irrational fear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, behaviors, or people.


http://www.medilexicon.com...


There is no irrationality or fear involved. Only logic.

1- Sexual orientation =/= Sexual behavior

Believing otherwise is the first pitfall.

Orientation is a subjective preference or a state of mind that is normally not consciously chosen. All states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent the person's behavior.
Perhabs homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal on that aspect, but so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Thoughts and feelings have no implications and they are not judged.

Sexual behaviors are conscious unless rape is involved. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior; it is impossible to identify someone as homosexual unless the person hinDesire does not provide justification for behavior, otherwise every single behavior including murder can be justified. Society either requires or encourages people to suppress harmful behavior for the common good.


The ancient Greeks supported homosexuals but were anti gay marriage. I don't think repressing homosexual behavior is beneficial to society. I support therapy and think it is effective in changing homosexuals, but society forcing them--or even encouraging them--to get therapy is wrong. Society doesn't need to frown upon homosexuals per se, but should not endorse it either. You are taking it a bit far buddy.

2- Equality & "Born this way"

No. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
By believing otherwise you are suppressing a basic fundamental truth about being a human.

You see, heterosexuality is immutable. Every single human, with the exception of hermaphrodites, are either males or females with their respective reproductive system.
Any sexual feeling or desire is rooted within chemicals and processes in that heterosexual design.
Therefore, heterosexuality is an objective physical reality.

For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals need to have their own physiology or gender. The truth is, homosexuals are human beings, who are unchangeably heterosexual, who identify themselves with engaging or the desire to engage in same-sex conduct.

Biologically, homosexuals are not different than thousands of other paraphilia like pedophilia or bestiality. In the end they are heterosexual by design.

Whether or not something is natural does not mean its good are bad. Saying "this is better because its natural" is a naturalistic fallacy. I would agree with you that homosexuality (mostly) branches from environmental factors, but homosexuals not being born that way =/= be opposed to them.

Then there is the "We are born this way"!
First of all, there is no scientific evidence other than outdated refuted studies from the 20th century. It is simply pseudo-science, a legal and political strategy.
Second of all, it doesn't matter. Nobody except people sucked into political agendas believe in biological determinism. Unless you have an extremely severe mental illness, you have the freedom of choice.


3- Civil rights & Marriage

Isn't it insulting to compare a cultural behavior to the oppression black people had?
Were homosexuals hunted, captured, decapitated, traded, forced into servitude, or placed in zoos?


Regardless. Homosexuals are citizens, they have all the obligations and rights as the person next door.
Civil right discrimination is treating equal parties unequally. As demonstrated above, they are equal as human beings. However, behavior is not included in civil rights.
Homosexuality is not objective and potentially changeable; there is no blood or DNA test that proves someone to be a homosexual. In fact, it would be impossible to tell whether someone is homosexual except by witnessing homosexual behavior or the person associates self with the said behavior.

Is there a straight test? I don't think so.


And before someone brings up "Hate crimes pandemic!"...

No one was going to bring that up.


According to the 2011 FBI hate crime report: http://www.fbi.gov... 1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes.
If we excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.
According to NCAVP which is a pro-homosexual organization:
avp.org/resources/reports/term/summary
The reported domestic/partner violence among homosexuals in 2011 is about 3930.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% more likely to receive violence amongst themselves than immature thugs in 2011. Epidemic.

I am astonished when those pushing political agenda focus on pushing hate crime laws (Punching a homosexual is a bigger offense than punching a grandmother since citizens don't deserve equal protection) when murder and theft statistics are massively larger.


Regarding marriage, I will only discuss it in legal terms.
First of all, the law does not care about love. You want to love? No body is stopping you: Go love your family, friends, partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that says "In love".


Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

Furthermore, by recognizing a private behavior, the government promotes it which is unreasonable since if it is not innate, then it is acquired. Homosexuals accounted for more than 80% of the AIDS diagnosis in 2011.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf

Who cares. Most AIDS/HIV transmissions are from drugs, it means they just share more needles (though they are, usually, more promiscuous as well). But this is a red herring. So two straight people with AIDS cannot get married. Seems legit.



I hope this cleared up the main objections. Thanks for reading.

I used to be made fun of on this site for being against gay marriage, gay parenting, and denying same sex "biological" causes. Well, the fact I find you a bit weird, is, well...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 1:09:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 11:04:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/28/2013 7:31:29 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"Homophobe" is a political term used by homosexual advocates.
Here is the legit medical term for reference:

homophobia
Type: Term

Pronunciation: h!3;R42;m!3;-f!3;R42;bē-ă

Definitions:
1. Irrational fear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, behaviors, or people.


http://www.medilexicon.com...


There is no irrationality or fear involved. Only logic.

1- Sexual orientation =/= Sexual behavior

Believing otherwise is the first pitfall.

Orientation is a subjective preference or a state of mind that is normally not consciously chosen. All states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent the person's behavior.
Perhabs homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal on that aspect, but so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Thoughts and feelings have no implications and they are not judged.

Sexual behaviors are conscious unless rape is involved. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior; it is impossible to identify someone as homosexual unless the person hinDesire does not provide justification for behavior, otherwise every single behavior including murder can be justified. Society either requires or encourages people to suppress harmful behavior for the common good.


The ancient Greeks supported homosexuals but were anti gay marriage. I don't think repressing homosexual behavior is beneficial to society. I support therapy and think it is effective in changing homosexuals, but society forcing them--or even encouraging them--to get therapy is wrong. Society doesn't need to frown upon homosexuals per se, but should not endorse it either. You are taking it a bit far buddy.

Semantics argument.

2- Equality & "Born this way"

No. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
By believing otherwise you are suppressing a basic fundamental truth about being a human.

You see, heterosexuality is immutable. Every single human, with the exception of hermaphrodites, are either males or females with their respective reproductive system.
Any sexual feeling or desire is rooted within chemicals and processes in that heterosexual design.
Therefore, heterosexuality is an objective physical reality.

For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals need to have their own physiology or gender. The truth is, homosexuals are human beings, who are unchangeably heterosexual, who identify themselves with engaging or the desire to engage in same-sex conduct.

Biologically, homosexuals are not different than thousands of other paraphilia like pedophilia or bestiality. In the end they are heterosexual by design.

Whether or not something is natural does not mean its good are bad. Saying "this is better because its natural" is a naturalistic fallacy. I would agree with you that homosexuality (mostly) branches from environmental factors, but homosexuals not being born that way =/= be opposed to them.

Then there is the "We are born this way"!
First of all, there is no scientific evidence other than outdated refuted studies from the 20th century. It is simply pseudo-science, a legal and political strategy.
Second of all, it doesn't matter. Nobody except people sucked into political agendas believe in biological determinism. Unless you have an extremely severe mental illness, you have the freedom of choice.


3- Civil rights & Marriage

Isn't it insulting to compare a cultural behavior to the oppression black people had?
Were homosexuals hunted, captured, decapitated, traded, forced into servitude, or placed in zoos?


Regardless. Homosexuals are citizens, they have all the obligations and rights as the person next door.
Civil right discrimination is treating equal parties unequally. As demonstrated above, they are equal as human beings. However, behavior is not included in civil rights.
Homosexuality is not objective and potentially changeable; there is no blood or DNA test that proves someone to be a homosexual. In fact, it would be impossible to tell whether someone is homosexual except by witnessing homosexual behavior or the person associates self with the said behavior.

Is there a straight test? I don't think so.

Nope, and that is why pretending that "sexual orientation" is somehow something objective is non-sense.


And before someone brings up "Hate crimes pandemic!"...

No one was going to bring that up.

Just in case.


According to the 2011 FBI hate crime report: http://www.fbi.gov... 1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes.
If we excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.
According to NCAVP which is a pro-homosexual organization:
avp.org/resources/reports/term/summary
The reported domestic/partner violence among homosexuals in 2011 is about 3930.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% more likely to receive violence amongst themselves than immature thugs in 2011. Epidemic.

I am astonished when those pushing political agenda focus on pushing hate crime laws (Punching a homosexual is a bigger offense than punching a grandmother since citizens don't deserve equal protection) when murder and theft statistics are massively larger.


Regarding marriage, I will only discuss it in legal terms.
First of all, the law does not care about love. You want to love? No body is stopping you: Go love your family, friends, partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that says "In love".


Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

Furthermore, by recognizing a private behavior, the government promotes it which is unreasonable since if it is not innate, then it is acquired. Homosexuals accounted for more than 80% of the AIDS diagnosis in 2011.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf

Who cares. Most AIDS/HIV transmissions are from drugs, it means they just share more needles (though they are, usually, more promiscuous as well). But this is a red herring. So two straight people with AIDS cannot get married. Seems legit.

The topic is not strictly at homosexual marriage. I am stating that homosexual behavior can carry a higher medical risk, which is something to discuss.



I hope this cleared up the main objections. Thanks for reading.

I used to be made fun of on this site for being against gay marriage, gay parenting, and denying same sex "biological" causes. Well, the fact I find you a bit weird, is, well...

Add me to the list of people who made fun of you.
Assuming ridiculing someone is enough to undermine an argument is basically an ad hominem. So I assume that when group think happens that the group do no feel secure about defending their point of view.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 10:23:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 1:09:40 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 1/1/2014 11:04:49 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/28/2013 7:31:29 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Sexual behaviors are conscious unless rape is involved. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior; it is impossible to identify someone as homosexual unless the person hinDesire does not provide justification for behavior, otherwise every single behavior including murder can be justified. Society either requires or encourages people to suppress harmful behavior for the common good.


The ancient Greeks supported homosexuals but were anti gay marriage. I don't think repressing homosexual behavior is beneficial to society. I support therapy and think it is effective in changing homosexuals, but society forcing them--or even encouraging them--to get therapy is wrong. Society doesn't need to frown upon homosexuals per se, but should not endorse it either. You are taking it a bit far buddy.

Semantics argument.

Not really. You said society should repress homosexuality for the common good. Although in a sense this is correct (i.e. Gay marriage should not be allowed), I showed a society which did not repress homosexuality and did fine. I am not anti gay for the sake of being anti gay, I am anti gay marriage and the morality of homosexual actions, but who am I to interfere with their sexuality.


2- Equality & "Born this way"

No. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
By believing otherwise you are suppressing a basic fundamental truth about being a human.

You see, heterosexuality is immutable. Every single human, with the exception of hermaphrodites, are either males or females with their respective reproductive system.
Any sexual feeling or desire is rooted within chemicals and processes in that heterosexual design.
Therefore, heterosexuality is an objective physical reality.

For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals need to have their own physiology or gender. The truth is, homosexuals are human beings, who are unchangeably heterosexual, who identify themselves with engaging or the desire to engage in same-sex conduct.

Biologically, homosexuals are not different than thousands of other paraphilia like pedophilia or bestiality. In the end they are heterosexual by design.

Whether or not something is natural does not mean its good are bad. Saying "this is better because its natural" is a naturalistic fallacy. I would agree with you that homosexuality (mostly) branches from environmental factors, but homosexuals not being born that way =/= be opposed to them.

Then there is the "We are born this way"!
First of all, there is no scientific evidence other than outdated refuted studies from the 20th century. It is simply pseudo-science, a legal and political strategy.
Second of all, it doesn't matter. Nobody except people sucked into political agendas believe in biological determinism. Unless you have an extremely severe mental illness, you have the freedom of choice.


3- Civil rights & Marriage

Isn't it insulting to compare a cultural behavior to the oppression black people had?
Were homosexuals hunted, captured, decapitated, traded, forced into servitude, or placed in zoos?


Regardless. Homosexuals are citizens, they have all the obligations and rights as the person next door.
Civil right discrimination is treating equal parties unequally. As demonstrated above, they are equal as human beings. However, behavior is not included in civil rights.
Homosexuality is not objective and potentially changeable; there is no blood or DNA test that proves someone to be a homosexual. In fact, it would be impossible to tell whether someone is homosexual except by witnessing homosexual behavior or the person associates self with the said behavior.

Is there a straight test? I don't think so.

Nope, and that is why pretending that "sexual orientation" is somehow something objective is non-sense.

I believe that homosexuality can be changed through therapy, and even spontaneously. My point was that its also impossible to tell who is straight.



And before someone brings up "Hate crimes pandemic!"...

No one was going to bring that up.

Just in case.

ok.



According to the 2011 FBI hate crime report: http://www.fbi.gov... 1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes.
If we excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.
According to NCAVP which is a pro-homosexual organization:
avp.org/resources/reports/term/summary
The reported domestic/partner violence among homosexuals in 2011 is about 3930.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% more likely to receive violence amongst themselves than immature thugs in 2011. Epidemic.

I am astonished when those pushing political agenda focus on pushing hate crime laws (Punching a homosexual is a bigger offense than punching a grandmother since citizens don't deserve equal protection) when murder and theft statistics are massively larger.


Regarding marriage, I will only discuss it in legal terms.
First of all, the law does not care about love. You want to love? No body is stopping you: Go love your family, friends, partner in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check box in an official document that says "In love".


Homosexual marriage contract goes beyond being a private contract. It demands legal and social benefits, thus it becomes a public contract. However, I have yet to learn of a beneficial social function that is exclusive to homosexuality. If there is none, then the government is not entitled to legally protect and finance such a contract.

Furthermore, by recognizing a private behavior, the government promotes it which is unreasonable since if it is not innate, then it is acquired. Homosexuals accounted for more than 80% of the AIDS diagnosis in 2011.
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf

Who cares. Most AIDS/HIV transmissions are from drugs, it means they just share more needles (though they are, usually, more promiscuous as well). But this is a red herring. So two straight people with AIDS cannot get married. Seems legit.

The topic is not strictly at homosexual marriage. I am stating that homosexual behavior can carry a higher medical risk, which is something to discuss.

I think its irrelevant to a debate which is centered on what marriage is (see Girgis et al. 2010 and 2012)




I hope this cleared up the main objections. Thanks for reading.

I used to be made fun of on this site for being against gay marriage, gay parenting, and denying same sex "biological" causes. Well, the fact I find you a bit weird, is, well...

Add me to the list of people who made fun of you.

lol I dont care what you think of me

Assuming ridiculing someone is enough to undermine an argument is basically an ad hominem. So I assume that when group think happens that the group do no feel secure about defending their point of view.

Oh, yeah, that last bit was ad hominem. I am not even denying that.

And I do defend my views. I have probably over 20 gay marriage debates, all of which (bar a few for devils advocate) I was Con. You simply think we should actively discourage homosexuality, whereas I actively don't encourage it, but don't encourage it either.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Poiesis
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 5:29:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

First of all, I believe that people have the right to do what they want to do, so long as it doesn't infringe upon another person's rights in the process.

I just wanted to note that the definition of "Homophobe" is as follows:

Homophobe
: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Of course, "Anti" just means "Opposed."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Opposed
1: not agreeing with or approving of something or someone
2: completely different

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So, the term "Anti-Gay" only coveys that a person does not approve of being gay (Homosexual, or Happy?) or that they are not gay themselves. Any straight person could fall under the literal definition.

It is definitely possible to disapprove of homosexuality without hating people who are gay, fearing them, or treating them badly.

I think that people should respect one another enough to let them think what they want to without lumping them together or giving them labels. That holds true for both sides.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 2:41:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 9:15:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

Homo = Homosexual. Phobia = Irrational fear. Homophobia = Irrational Fear of Homosexuals. You could hate gay people for all they are, but if you aren't scared of them, you aren't homophobic.


Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with Jews. It's just everything about them I have a problem with. Stop calling me an anti-Semite!!! Hurr durr reverse oppressions bros...

If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them.

Stop pretending like literally anyone cares.

However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings,

Wut

they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA),

So?

they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings,"

So?

and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters.

That's not a bad thing. Plus yer wrong. Openly gay LGBTQ+ characters make up around 2% of television characters, arguably a smaller number than actually exist.

We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful,

Which is stupid. You should feel stupid.

but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay.

Because it is and not accepting this literally ends lives.

You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Who says univers tolerance is a good thing? I tolerate it when I get cut off in traffic. I don't tolerate pitiful wastes of space.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 2:50:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 3:18:56 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/28/2013 7:17:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/27/2013 9:15:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

I would disagree on this point. That is not the definition of the word, that is a smear and slander tactic. Phobic (from phobia) means morbid fear, used in the form of an anxiety disorder rooted in said morbid fear, being against something does not mean that you have a morbid fear of it.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Multiple definitions brah.

There are two types of definitions... What a word means, and how it's used. How it's used can be completely wrong, but they get included so that you know what someone might mean when they use that word, even if they aren't using it right. In the end, a professional should only ever use the actual meaning, and the rest is for street talk.

Besides, certain groups of words are predefined. Words like Homophobia, where the definition is preset in the Latin roots.

-Homophobia- Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.
http://phobialist.com...-


and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters.

That's not a bad thing. Plus yer wrong. Openly gay LGBTQ+ characters make up around 2% of television characters, arguably a smaller number than actually exist.

This I would also question. While the population of gays is closer to about 5%, not all gays are openly gay. There are a significant number of people that don't let their sexuality define them. Dumbledore is a perfect example.

1) My bad, it's actually 3.3. percent [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...]
2) Being openly gay =/= being defined by one's sexuality. The overwhelming majority of those depicted in media are "openly straight" but the charge is never really leveled at them.
3) I was responding to the OP's charge that (a) openly gay people are represented everywhere in media and (b) that that's a bad thing. They're not exactly everywhere, they're simply depicted.
4) Off topic but don't get me started on the Dumbledore thing. It always annoyed me that his sexuality was only canonized outside of the text.

You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Who says univers tolerance is a good thing? I tolerate it when I get cut off in traffic. I don't tolerate pitiful wastes of space.

I assume that most of this is just rampped up to get a reply and if a reply is generated, you'll get into more reasonable responses.

Meh. The kid annoyed me.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 2:53:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/1/2014 10:49:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

I thought that there was not a person on this good green earth that does not sin. Why are you ok with one type of sinner to shoot the wedding pics but not another type of sinner? All hetrosexual photographers need to either be married or sign an affidavit that they are not having sex out of wedlock?

Not every sin is equal. A singular curse word =/= a lifestyle.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 9:49:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 2:11:00 AM, Artur wrote:
I live in a society which has homosexuals and there are homo's. here, it is banned.

there are homophobs or people who are against it, I want to ask you: why are you against them. I am not gay or I am not bisexual but I am not against them. it is their private life why do you care them? I am not judging you but I just wanted to know.

their organs(!) belongs just to them. share your ideas please.

no true's and false's in this topic, just opinions.

First you must realize "homophob" is a made up word by homosexuals to end dialog about homosexuality. Second you must realize that a person who does not promote or condone homosexuality is not a threat to a homosexual engaging in homosexual behavior. Third you must realize that a person who does not condone homosexual marriage does so out of logic based on nature and how the the human species procreates. If you don't like any of this, to bad. Let's let society put it to a vote. I will abide by that decision. Use the courts, and I will resist every effort and consider it tyranny.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 1:23:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 2:50:31 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/29/2013 3:18:56 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/28/2013 7:17:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/27/2013 9:15:18 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic?

Yes because that's the definition.

I would disagree on this point. That is not the definition of the word, that is a smear and slander tactic. Phobic (from phobia) means morbid fear, used in the form of an anxiety disorder rooted in said morbid fear, being against something does not mean that you have a morbid fear of it.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Multiple definitions brah.

There are two types of definitions... What a word means, and how it's used. How it's used can be completely wrong, but they get included so that you know what someone might mean when they use that word, even if they aren't using it right. In the end, a professional should only ever use the actual meaning, and the rest is for street talk.

Yer linguistico-realism killed my buzz.

Besides, certain groups of words are predefined. Words like Homophobia, where the definition is preset in the Latin roots.

-Homophobia- Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.
http://phobialist.com...-



and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters.

That's not a bad thing. Plus yer wrong. Openly gay LGBTQ+ characters make up around 2% of television characters, arguably a smaller number than actually exist.

This I would also question. While the population of gays is closer to about 5%, not all gays are openly gay. There are a significant number of people that don't let their sexuality define them. Dumbledore is a perfect example.

1) My bad, it's actually 3.3. percent [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...]
2) Being openly gay =/= being defined by one's sexuality. The overwhelming majority of those depicted in media are "openly straight" but the charge is never really leveled at them.
3) I was responding to the OP's charge that (a) openly gay people are represented everywhere in media and (b) that that's a bad thing. They're not exactly everywhere, they're simply depicted.
4) Off topic but don't get me started on the Dumbledore thing. It always annoyed me that his sexuality was only canonized outside of the text.

You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

Who says univers tolerance is a good thing? I tolerate it when I get cut off in traffic. I don't tolerate pitiful wastes of space.

I assume that most of this is just rampped up to get a reply and if a reply is generated, you'll get into more reasonable responses.

Meh. The kid annoyed me.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 5:41:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 2:53:45 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/1/2014 10:49:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

I thought that there was not a person on this good green earth that does not sin. Why are you ok with one type of sinner to shoot the wedding pics but not another type of sinner? All hetrosexual photographers need to either be married or sign an affidavit that they are not having sex out of wedlock?

Not every sin is equal. A singular curse word =/= a lifestyle.

That's just not even remotely close to doctrinally accurate. Really, just stop talking.
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 5:54:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 5:41:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2014 2:53:45 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/1/2014 10:49:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

I thought that there was not a person on this good green earth that does not sin. Why are you ok with one type of sinner to shoot the wedding pics but not another type of sinner? All hetrosexual photographers need to either be married or sign an affidavit that they are not having sex out of wedlock?

Not every sin is equal. A singular curse word =/= a lifestyle.

That's just not even remotely close to doctrinally accurate. Really, just stop talking.

Rudeness isn't an argument.
Sin is all equal to God. Not to people. That's why Murder is a worse sin than Theft. While not as bad as a crime, Homosexuality, as a whole lifestyle, would be more sinful than most other sins .
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 9:22:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 5:54:43 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 5:41:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2014 2:53:45 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/1/2014 10:49:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

I thought that there was not a person on this good green earth that does not sin. Why are you ok with one type of sinner to shoot the wedding pics but not another type of sinner? All hetrosexual photographers need to either be married or sign an affidavit that they are not having sex out of wedlock?

Not every sin is equal. A singular curse word =/= a lifestyle.

That's just not even remotely close to doctrinally accurate. Really, just stop talking.

Rudeness isn't an argument.

No, it's not... and I can think of fewer things more rude than homophobia.

Sin is all equal to God.

Yes.

Not to people.

Transgression against man is transgression against God, but sin of any kind -whether transgression against fellow man or not- is not for man to judge. He can judge the transgression, but delineating sin from that which is not sin is over and above man's authority -including yours.

That's why Murder is a worse sin than Theft. While not as bad as a crime, Homosexuality, as a whole lifestyle, would be more sinful than most other sins .

There is categorically no scriptural basis for that claim.
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:08:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 9:22:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/12/2014 5:54:43 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 5:41:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2014 2:53:45 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/1/2014 10:49:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

I thought that there was not a person on this good green earth that does not sin. Why are you ok with one type of sinner to shoot the wedding pics but not another type of sinner? All hetrosexual photographers need to either be married or sign an affidavit that they are not having sex out of wedlock?

Not every sin is equal. A singular curse word =/= a lifestyle.

That's just not even remotely close to doctrinally accurate. Really, just stop talking.

Rudeness isn't an argument.

No, it's not... and I can think of fewer things more rude than homophobia.

I can't think of anything less intelligent than ad hominem. Defaming someone with words like Homophobia.

Homophobia- Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.

Being against someone's way of life and being scared of it are rapidly different. The wrongful use of that term to assault a persons self is very immature for a debater.


Sin is all equal to God.

Yes.

Not to people.

Transgression against man is transgression against God, but sin of any kind -whether transgression against fellow man or not- is not for man to judge. He can judge the transgression, but delineating sin from that which is not sin is over and above man's authority -including yours.

It isn't a case of judgement. I can understand you sinned... That you were wrong for it, as the Bible has told me you are... And be against it... And yet not be judging you. I don't have to judge a homosexual when telling you what the Bible says about homosexuality. It's not about judging the person, it's about judging his action. I judge homosexuality as being bad, but I don't homosexuals as being bad people.

Besides, Judgement is a valuable feature in people. A key to preservation of social morality. A Christian must understand that there is, in the end, one singular moral code in the Bible. But no, We can judge a persons actions without judging him.

That's why Murder is a worse sin than Theft. While not as bad as a crime, Homosexuality, as a whole lifestyle, would be more sinful than most other sins .

There is categorically no scriptural basis for that claim.

It's not in scripture. It's one of many ideas forged from a logical analyzes of it. That a lifestyle of sin is more sinful than a single action. It's also forged out of common sense... From the human perspective, sin isn't equal. We know this because a Murder is more harshly punished than a Theft. From that, we know a sin can be worse than other sin. And whats more sinful than one action? two... or three... Or an entire lifestyle.

There is also no scripture that says Lucifer is Satan, or that the Anti-Christ is one person. Much like Rights that are implicit but not actually mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
YYW
Posts: 36,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:18:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:08:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:22:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/12/2014 5:54:43 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 5:41:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2014 2:53:45 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/1/2014 10:49:54 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 7:34:06 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
You asked for a response from a "homophob." Do you by any chance have the mindset that anyone anti-gay is automatically homophobic? Anyhow, I will give you a response.
First, I do not hate GLBT people. It's their behavior I have a problem with. If they were content to live their lives without forcing us who do not acknowledge their behavior as normal to pretend they are normal, I'd be fine with them. However...they force Christian pastors to serve at their weddings, they pressure conservative institutions to tolerate their behavior openly (such as the BSA), they force Conservatives to bake cakes and snap photos for their "weddings," and you can hardly watch television these days without there being openly gay characters. We Christians believe their behavior to be sinful, but everybody is pressuring and harassing us to accept it as okay. You yourself addressed this question to "homophobes," or should I say "homophobs." I guess tolerance doesn't apply to conservative christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful.

I thought that there was not a person on this good green earth that does not sin. Why are you ok with one type of sinner to shoot the wedding pics but not another type of sinner? All hetrosexual photographers need to either be married or sign an affidavit that they are not having sex out of wedlock?

Not every sin is equal. A singular curse word =/= a lifestyle.

That's just not even remotely close to doctrinally accurate. Really, just stop talking.

Rudeness isn't an argument.

No, it's not... and I can think of fewer things more rude than homophobia.

I can't think of anything less intelligent than ad hominem. Defaming someone with words like Homophobia.

Interesting. You take issue with being called homophobic, but see nothing wrong with condemning homosexuals.

Homophobia- Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.

Being against someone's way of life and being scared of it are rapidly different. The wrongful use of that term to assault a persons self is very immature for a debater.

Homophobia is irrational fear or prejudice against homosexuality, i.e. the basis of all anti-gay sentiment. And now, after taking issue with my calling you a homophobe, whining about that being ad hom. you have the audacity to call me immature? I see hypocrisy is something you're overflowing with, this evening.

Sin is all equal to God.

Yes.

Not to people.

Transgression against man is transgression against God, but sin of any kind -whether transgression against fellow man or not- is not for man to judge. He can judge the transgression, but delineating sin from that which is not sin is over and above man's authority -including yours.

It isn't a case of judgement. I can understand you sinned... That you were wrong for it, as the Bible has told me you are... And be against it... And yet not be judging you.

Do you genuinely not grasp the inherently contradictory nature of that statement?
Tsar of DDO