Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Mormons are homophobes?


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#31 lilboo

lilboo

    Not addicted to WoW

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 06:02 PM

How easy is it for homosexual couples to adopt a child? How stable do homosexual families tend to be? What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?

I can't answer most of those questions any better than you, or anyone else on this forum. There are two many factors, the most important being the individuality of the people involved in the equation. For all we know, a particular homosexual couple will be wise and understanding, and will raise their adopted child well despite any difficulties that may arise. Or it could all absolutely go to pot. You can draw whatever generalities you like, but the ultimate outcome is based on individual people, not trends.


:rofl:

I am gay.
My parents are straight.
So, how did this happen???

Now Playing:
:pc: Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

:pc: Diablo III: Reaper of Souls

:wiiu: Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze

:3ds: Animal Crossing: New Leaf

:3ds: Pokemon Battle Trozei


#32 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 06:05 PM

Who demonstrated this? What was their sample size? In what locations did they make these inquiries? You can't just throw around statements like "It was shown." Who did the showing, how did they do the showing, and exactly what was "it?"


he said "if," and phrased the rest of the sentence in terms of a question seeking your opinion. it's a hypothetical.

I instinctively distrust all statistics.


Two things:
1) he didn't list any statistics.
2) only lazy people "instinctively" distrust stats. i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.
Posted Image

#33 RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

    fate is inexorable

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 06:12 PM

:rofl:

I am gay.
My parents are straight.
So, how did this happen???


obviously one of your parents is hiding something

Posted Image


#34 blaked569

blaked569

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 07:07 PM

But a democratic government is not based on individuals, but on large groups comprised of individuals. And it doesn't make much sense for a large number of exceptions to be made in favor of a minority group whose approach to gender is self-destructive to their own species.


If you want to start alluding to biological selection, you should know that selection happens on the level of the individual, not the species. That's why biological organisms have selfish tendencies. In fact, you would stand to benefit from homosexuals in that, by not reproducing, more resources are left in the environment for your own offspring. I know this statement in itself is ridiculous, but I'm just trying to show that your biological approach is pretty flawed. I can get more into this if you want.

Also, this is a site about video games - an entertainment product. You know, for leisure. If you're gonna call out gays for being detrimental on the basis of not being productive for society, you might as well call out all the people on this site who play video games in their spare time as opposed to volunteering or helping orphans.

#35 lilboo

lilboo

    Not addicted to WoW

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 08:20 PM

obviously one of your parents is hiding something


:shock:

Now Playing:
:pc: Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

:pc: Diablo III: Reaper of Souls

:wiiu: Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze

:3ds: Animal Crossing: New Leaf

:3ds: Pokemon Battle Trozei


#36 TLPRIME

TLPRIME

    Aim small. Miss small.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 08:44 PM

If there are exceptions to every rule, then why does all hell break loose when a gay couple wants to get married? It's just another exception to the "rule".

And implying children raised by a gay couple will be impaired because of it, for lack of a better word, is crazy ignorant. Have you ever drove through a trailer park?..or watched an episode of COPS?..or attended a NASCAR event?? Lots of people there raised by herterosexual parents.

Ok I kid..I kid.

well..not really ;)

#37 flameofdoom666

flameofdoom666

    3D Dot Game Link!!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 09:25 PM

What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?


What about gay and lesbian individuals who grew up in a heterosexual household? Fair is fair.

Honestly- a homosexual couple who want to adapt, probally make far better parents then the sleezy 17 year old who got knocked up.

Homosexual's should have the same rights as anyone else, no matter what your fucked up logic tells you.

#38 Richard Kain

Richard Kain

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:26 PM

Ahhhhh...hot topics. I'm always amazed by the ire they inspire. I can't help but feel that most of you didn't even bother reading the posts you quoted. Most of you are attempting to argue points that I made.

I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents. Obviously, on a case-by-case basis, no evidence exists for either position. So there is only one thing we can be sure of, and that is...

Homesexuals can't be heterosexual parents.

The traditional family structure is to have male and female caregivers. The significance of this is not limited to reproduction. Males and females are fundamentally different. If you have a family unit with only male, or only female parents, the child is denied the experience of having a parent of the gender that is left out of the equation. For better or worse, they are forever denied the experience of having a parent of the absent gender. Given that human anatomy is geared toward heterosexual reproduction, this is a significant omission.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)

#39 flameofdoom666

flameofdoom666

    3D Dot Game Link!!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:35 PM

I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents.


The same can be said about a stright couple. Also, think about this: if a homosexual couple has to jump through hoops to raise a child, I feel like they will be great parents. I won't say better, because who am I to judge- but compared to the 17 year old who got knocked up in high school... yeah I am sure they will be significantly better parents. I also think it will be more stable of an environment, than something like a single parent.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)


Flip the situation. What about the homosexual who grows in in a stright household? How do they learn to behave? Friends, family (the parents are not the only ones that are family), media, and whatnot.

Your view of things is veryyyy close minded.

#40 dubbfoolio

dubbfoolio

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:37 PM

Mormon...ism as an actual religion. We consider it to be a cult.


I can't believe you're singling out mormonism as a cult. All religions are cults, some cults are just more profitable than others. All people are people regardless of where they do with their genatalia, some people just like to be pretend they're sheep.

#41 kube00

kube00

    Grammar Hammer!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:39 PM

myke and coffee nailed it for me

Isn't it true that Mormons shy away from letting Africa-Americans into their church?

To some Mormonism is truly explained by South Park. Now if someone was to do research on Joesph Smith...

I've had good and bad interactions with Mormons, if you preach to me or push your religion on me it usually reflects badly as whole...

CAG TradeList
Co-Founder of The Gamer's Lounge The Gamer's Lounge: All About video games!
Former EIC of Goozernation.com 


#42 CoffeeEdge

CoffeeEdge

    Resident Communaut

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:43 PM

I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents.

Of course not, but what the Fuck sort of question is that? You know that, and you also know damn well that there is no such guarantee for heterosexual parents, either. Since when have proving that a couple would make guaranteed good parents been a requirement for state/legal marriage?

Be honest with me: are you intentionally trying to pointlessly obfuscate the issue here by bringing up pointless bullshit arguments and questions that you already know the answer to?

The traditional family structure is to have male and female caregivers.

Traditional =/= only valid.

I doubt I'll live to see it, but I really look forward to a time when people stop using "tradition" as a shallow argument to stall progression.

The significance of this is not limited to reproduction. Males and females are fundamentally different. If you have a family unit with only male, or only female parents, the child is denied the experience of having a parent of the gender that is left out of the equation. For better or worse, they are forever denied the experience of having a parent of the absent gender.

So are millions of children with single parents.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)

Believe it or not, children DO learn things from places other than their parents and the mass media. Like, ya know, personal experience. Seriously dude, how do you explain any behaviors or qualities that a child has, that their parents don't?

I also didn't have to read into this much to see that you seem to have a belief that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples always behave with each other in inherently different ways, and that children would need to be taught to treat an opposite-sex partner fundamentally differently from a same-sex one.

Seriously, man, I can hardly quote a single sentence from you where I can't read bigotry and homophobia just beneath the surface.



ummm Orson Scott Card?

:rofl:
Oh man this post was hilarious, high five, dude.

Edited by CoffeeEdge, 11 September 2009 - 10:53 PM.

Hi...

DID SOMEBODY SAY "TOOT"?!?
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image I WILL MOTHERF--KING BAN THE F--KING SHIT OUT OF YOU Posted Image

Posted Image


#43 dubbfoolio

dubbfoolio

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 11:08 PM

It all comes down to equality and you my mormon friend are not better than anyone else because of their sexual preference. Apparently you find it convenient to stand against other people receiving government issued rights that are currently afforded to yourself. Some of us find it convenient to think that you're kind of an asshole.

#44 Richard Kain

Richard Kain

Posted 11 September 2009 - 11:41 PM

I also didn't have to read into this much to see that you seem to have a belief that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples always behave with each other in inherently different ways, and that children would need to be taught to treat an opposite-sex partner fundamentally differently from a same-sex one.



Ah, thank you for highlighting the crux of my argument. A homosexual relationship IS inherently different from a heterosexual relationship. In order to invalidate that argument, you would have to prove that men and women are analagous, and that they behave exactly the same way with each other.

Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

#45 bdb2m

bdb2m

    No Backseat Mods!!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 September 2009 - 11:59 PM

First a quick note, in order for a religion to be considered a cult, it must have few followers, that is what technically makes it a "cult." LDS has a lot of followers and churches all over the place, so its a bit large to be called a cult.

Second, I understand this is a heated topic, but I have to ask all those against gay marriage: What difference does it make to you if a same-sex couple wants to get married? If gay marriage was passed tomorrow, how does that affect you in any way? Why do you care if someone else gets married? If you say its against God's will, I'm sure you can name several other things you did this week personally that were against God's will too. Why worry about someone else?

If its the fact that you don't want equal rights, you are a bigot.

Seriously, think about it this way..if gay marriage passed tomorrow and you are not gay or thinking about getting married, how does your life change in any way? I just think its funny that there are so many that argue against this when it has no direct effect on them.

Edited by bdb2m, 12 September 2009 - 12:11 AM.


#46 frombrknwings

frombrknwings

Posted 12 September 2009 - 12:04 AM

Wow just wow im glad im not religious
Posted Image

#47 CoffeeEdge

CoffeeEdge

    Resident Communaut

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 12:15 AM

Okay, Rich, I'll humor you on that. In the context of accepting your statement, I will reply with:

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.

Edited by CoffeeEdge, 12 September 2009 - 12:26 AM.

Hi...

DID SOMEBODY SAY "TOOT"?!?
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image I WILL MOTHERF--KING BAN THE F--KING SHIT OUT OF YOU Posted Image

Posted Image


#48 Magus8472

Magus8472

    The Sudden Stop

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 01:32 AM

The amount of unintentional irony in this thread is amazing.
Posted Image

#49 flameofdoom666

flameofdoom666

    3D Dot Game Link!!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 01:58 AM

Okay, Rich, I'll humor you on that. In the context of accepting your statement, I will reply with:

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.


^
^
^
This.

Well said.

#50 Cheapass24

Cheapass24

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 02:14 AM

Am i the only one that clicked this because I thought it said Morons are homophobic?
Check out by band Four Nights Gone's new single Crash and Burn if you like any type of rock (Three Days Grace, Breaking Benjamin, Chevelle, Avenged Sevenfold etc)

www.fournightsgone.bandcamp.com

#51 sanderdaniels81

sanderdaniels81

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 05:16 AM

only lazy people "instinctively" distrust stats. i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.



This is a bit of a tangent, but it was dripping so thoroughly with ignorance that I couldn't ignore it.

If you don't inherently distrust statistics, you've either never taken a course in statistics, or you slept through it.

Statistics can be and ARE used to support just about ANY position. This is why so many statistically-based studies reach completely opposite conclusions.

Statistics are essentially the "generalizations" of the data world. The data BEHIND the statistics (the metadata) is what is ACTUALLY of interest (when used in conjunction with the data, obviously). If you aren't looking at the demographics, sample size, personal biases of the statistician, etc... then you're not going to learn ANYTHING from the study. The statistics themselves are almost completely useless without the metadata.

i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.



This part in particular is what I find most ironic, because you CLEARLY lack the methodological and mathematical know-how to discuss statistics. Please, please, take a statistics course before you continue pretending that you're an expert. And if you plan to respond with "I already have", then PLEASE go take it again and pay some attention this time.

#52 Richard Kain

Richard Kain

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:25 AM

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.


Yes, but then dogs are different from cats, grass is different from the sky, and a snow-globe is not the same thing as an alarm clock. Throwing out obvious "differences" is not a compelling rebuttal. And all of the examples you offer don't even come close to the obvious disparity between "male" and "female."

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?


Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And since I already said it, I'm mildly annoyed that you asked me to repeat myself.

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.


You would be wrong. I am always up to the challenge. And I'm amused that in all of that you still failed to address my question. Turning a question around on the person who asked it is only effective if they have no response.

Women and men are different from each other, on a fundamental level. If this is true, then it stands to reason that a relationship between two members of the same sex, will be different from two members of the opposite sex. A heterosexual relationship will not be the same as a homosexual relationship.

The institution of marriage was established to address heterosexual relationships. It is intended to support stable families. Why should it be applied to homosexual relationships, when they are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships? You don't just blindly apply the same rules to different circumstances. That's a bit short-sighted.

People like to bandy around the term "equal." But few stop to think about what it really encompasses. Men don't actually treat women equally, and vice versa. I don't treat children equally to adults, for very obvious reasons. Generally speaking, such standards are understood on a social level. People learn through experience what society accepts and what it doesn't, even if it isn't written down.

Homosexual marriage is an example of an extreme minority group attempting to buck that trend. Given the nature of the U.S. government, there is nothing wrong with their attempt. But they do face an uphill battle against the majority of their fellow citizens. If homosexuals weren't in the minority, than these sorts of laws would have already been passed, and the argument would be moot.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.


And here you are simply repeating something I already pointed out.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.


I genuinely don't think I'm bigoted. I do object to homosexuality on a religious and personal basis, but I have never allowed that to affect how I treat homosexuals specifically. I have more real-life experience with homosexuals than most people. I've worked with them before, and even spent two years of college living in the same room as one. I found we were able to be quite friendly, despite the disparity in our lifestyles.

So I'm not a bigot, I just have no faith in humanity. Regrettably, the flagging quality of the arguments here haven't sparked any fresh hope. Claiming to be open-minded is useless if you don't actually put your mind to good use.

#53 CoffeeEdge

CoffeeEdge

    Resident Communaut

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:53 AM

Yes, but then dogs are different from cats, grass is different from the sky, and a snow-globe is not the same thing as an alarm clock. Throwing out obvious "differences" is not a compelling rebuttal. And all of the examples you offer don't even come close to the obvious disparity between "male" and "female."

And you don't even come close to offering an compelling explanation for why homosexual couples, different from heterosexuals they may be, are so fundamentally less capable of building stable families, than hetero couples, that they don't even deserve the same opportunities.

Yes, I fucking agree, homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. No shit. That is no longer the question. The question is how you can sit there and tell me that there is any justification for homosexuals not having access to the same institutions that supposedly "promote stable families," that hetero couples, in all their demonstrable degrees of failure and success, have. The world is up to it's neck in disastrous and dysfunctional families with hetero parents.

And no, I don't think that all homosexual unions would automatically be shining examples of perfect parents and all raise perfect families, so don't try to "gotcha" me with that. I don't give a shit if statistically they resulted in 20% more or 20% less stable, functional families. The bottom line, is that they deserve the same opportunity.

Women and men are different from each other, on a fundamental level. If this is true, then it stands to reason that a relationship between two members of the same sex, will be different from two members of the opposite sex. A heterosexual relationship will not be the same as a homosexual relationship.

As stated above, yes. As also stated above, this is no longer the question.

The institution of marriage was established to address heterosexual relationships. It is intended to support stable families. Why should it be applied to homosexual relationships, when they are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships?

Women are fundamentally different from men, so why should we have applied to them the same voting rights as men? Because most certainly, there were plenty of explanations out there for why women being able to vote would be "unstable," 150 years ago.

Homosexual marriage is an example of an extreme minority group attempting to buck that trend.

Yeah, and black people in the United States used to be a minority who wanted to be able to "buck the trend" of not being able to vote.

I genuinely don't think I'm bigoted. I do object to homosexuality on a religious and personal basis, but I have never allowed that to affect how I treat homosexuals specifically. I have more real-life experience with homosexuals than most people. I've worked with them before, and even spent two years of college living in the same room as one. I found we were able to be quite friendly, despite the disparity in our lifestyles.

Hah! The old "some of my best friends are gay" cop-out. Mercy me.
Hi...

DID SOMEBODY SAY "TOOT"?!?
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image I WILL MOTHERF--KING BAN THE F--KING SHIT OUT OF YOU Posted Image

Posted Image


#54 blaked569

blaked569

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 04:02 PM

to Coffeeedge and others - i don't agree with Richard Kain, but he's probably been the most diplomatic one in this thread, despite the fact that his pov is largely offensive to those who believe otherwise.

in any case, responding with an undignified air of condescension really doesn't serve productively in the long run. yeah, he's being a bigot (from my definition of bigot, although he probably doesn't agree). but by saying "yeah try to talk yourself out of that one, BIGOT" etc. will serve to further polarize the two sides, rather than form any sort of conclusive agreement.

#55 sanderdaniels81

sanderdaniels81

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:19 PM

If you believe in God, do you believe that he's a bigot?

Why did God design human bodies so that only a male and a female could procreate?

If you don't believe in God, why did evolution do so?

Medical science still hasn't come up with a way to let gay couples have a child that is genetically related to both partners. And it probably never will. Because God didn't design the system to work that way.

What would you call something in the human body that prevented cells from multiplying before they died?

If homosexuality were universally practiced, the earth would be de-populated in a single generation. It would be the societal and evolutionary equivalent of apoptosis.

(You can talk about how there are some heterosexual couples who are unable to have children, but they are unequivocally the exception, not the rule - which is why we still have plenty of people on earth).

While homosexuality is accepted by individuals, it cannot be embraced by societies as a whole without disastrous consequences. So it should come as no surprise when there is great societal resistance to the attempts to create equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.


Different people have all sorts of different inclinations. Does that make it good and healthy to indulge in them?

Often I hear people referring to homosexuality with a list of other sins, such as stealing, lying, cheating, etc... This is often objected to by gays on the basis that their behavior, between two consenting adults of the same sex, doesn't affect anyone but themselves.

How about obesity? It has been generally proven that obesity is a self-destructive behavior. It's symptoms typically manifest themselves quite obviously early on, but the harmful effects are often not seen for decades. Obesity has been shown to be the cause of NUMEROUS other disorders in the body, harmful to the individual.

Interestingly, society, and even the government, have seen obesity as significant enough to launch a campaign AGAINST it. Why? It's that individual's choice to be obese if they want to, right? They aren't hurting anyone else with their behavior.

Similarly, gays and lesbians have an increased risk for a host of diseases as a result of the lifestyle they've chosen to live (notice that I didn't say they chose their DESIRES, rather their LIFESTYLE).

The desires are not sinful, but the behaviors are. The person who craves food with an insatiable appetite isn't sinful until they choose to become obese through the act of gluttonous eating. The person who craves homosexual sex isn't sinful until they choose to actually engage in homosexual sex.

Does this mean I think less of people who have adopted a gay lifestyle? Absolutely not - neither would I think less of an overweight person who has decided there's no escape from being obese and stops trying. All of us give into our vices at times, and we should try to help each other overcome those vices rather than embracing them and making them a part of our lifestyle. It's when we EMBRACE our vices as normal that there's a serious problem, and that we need help to escape from them.

We should be universally concerned for those around us who have given in, and embraced these unhealthy vices - especially when it's to the point where their individual identity DEPENDS on it.

I have yet to meet a heterosexual person who is constantly identifying themselves as a "heterosexual" rather than just as a person. I have, however, met obese people who see their obesity as a part of their identity (as "a fat person"), and alcoholics who see their alcoholism as a part of their identity ("i'm an alcoholic"), and gay people who see their homosexuality as a part of their identity.

Feel free to disagree, or call me whatever you'd like, but I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe that God created men and women for the purpose of having families together, and having joy as families. I understand that some people are born without the desire for sex with the opposite gender, and these individuals have a great struggle if they choose to fight their desires. But I believe that God expects them to do so.

Truth is not always easy to accept, but truth is true regardless of how many arguments are "won" against it.

Once again, these are my beliefs, and I'm entitled to them, just as you're entitled to yours. I have several gay friends who are quite aware of where I stand, and they respect my right to my beliefs just as I respect theirs, even though our views are at odds.

Edited by sanderdaniels81, 12 September 2009 - 06:29 PM.


#56 dubbfoolio

dubbfoolio

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 06:39 PM

it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people. And people can do whatever the Fuck they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm fucking better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well Fuck your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the fucking line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.

#57 Magus8472

Magus8472

    The Sudden Stop

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:08 PM

it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people. And people can do whatever the Fuck they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm fucking better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well Fuck your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the fucking line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.


I see people do this sort of thing all the time, and I just have to ask.

Do you not understand the inherent rhetorical problem in combining mocking derision of religion with grand statements about universal rights? Whose mind do you think you're changing with a statement like this?

Moreover, do you realize how much easier it is to agree with your opposition when you sound like this?
Posted Image

#58 CoffeeEdge

CoffeeEdge

    Resident Communaut

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:25 PM

Yeah, sorry, dubbfoolio, but I don't agree with your methods, there.

No one is more opposed to people using beliefs derived from religion, or really, anything, as an excuse to justify anything but full-parity treatment for all people than I am, but I wouldn't say it the way you did.
Hi...

DID SOMEBODY SAY "TOOT"?!?
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image I WILL MOTHERF--KING BAN THE F--KING SHIT OUT OF YOU Posted Image

Posted Image


#59 blaked569

blaked569

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:33 PM

While homosexuality is accepted by individuals, it cannot be embraced by societies as a whole without disastrous consequences.


Can you elaborate a little on this? It's true that if everybody suddenly turned homosexual and stopped reproducing, human civilization would come to an abrupt end. But I can't really see how allowing gay marriage would lead to everybody turning gay overnight.

#60 CoffeeEdge

CoffeeEdge

    Resident Communaut

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 September 2009 - 07:42 PM

Can you elaborate a little on this? It's true that if everybody suddenly turned homosexual and stopped reproducing, human civilization would come to an abrupt end. But I can't really see how allowing gay marriage would lead to everybody turning gay overnight.



I'm not even going to start with sanderdaniels81, myself. Wouldn't touch that shit with a 10 foot pole.

But since you asked, I suppose I would like to hear his homosexual apocalypse theory.
Hi...

DID SOMEBODY SAY "TOOT"?!?
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image I WILL MOTHERF--KING BAN THE F--KING SHIT OUT OF YOU Posted Image

Posted Image