Homosexuality in Religion

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
In context such as this, such an action would be poor debating.
However, if a counterargument is valid against two or more arguments, then it is a valid action.

If you can bring up the points where you feel he's been regurgitating everything, I'd be happy to lend my (hopefully unbiased) opinion.

Well he's already stated what he feels rots been re-stating multiple times. He was complaining how Rot would always restate the same response about beastiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.

My take:
Inter-species: Perverted, why? Interspecies sex is commonly thought to be perverted and immoral. Then theres the fact of the lack of communication between the ones having intercourse means that there is no idea if the other species is revieving the intercourse willingly. Thus possibly making it rape, and we can accept rape as a perversion I believe.

Pedophilia: Perverted, why? Well it could also be commonly agreed by many people that it is a perverse act, but thats about as far as you can get. There is also the fact that children may not be prepared for sexual intercourse and that could also make it a perverse act then.

Necrophilia: Perverted, why? It is generally taken as immoral, therefore perverse. That and corpses are not willing at all, those whom claim they are, are insane. Corpses are not capable of emotional love, or any emotions at all, making it very perverse. There is also the lack of communication and the lack of knowing if its willing or not. Which it obviously isn't...

Rasq wrote:

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote: Maybe if you guys asked honest questions rather than trying to trap me in some kind of poorly conceived logic snare, I would be more inclined to remain civil myself.

That's what a debate is. Trapping your opponent until he or she can not come up with a counter argument until they agree they are wrong. It really wouldn't be a debate if we just agreed with you now would it?

Although you guys have been pretty good about it, he's talking about logic traps. Catch-22s.
For example, the quote Gauz (or maybe Pheonix... or somebody else) questioning if God is omnipotent, good, just, whatever, is commonly known as a straw man argument.

No... not really. I made the quote, it wasn't to divert the attention of the original topic, it did tie in with what we discussed. It didn't draw attention from the original debate, so much as attempt to reinforce the belief that God is either unwilling, unjust, unloving, or not powerful.

Rasq wrote:

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:You could save me the time and actually do some research before you post.

Could you save me the time and actually so research on my posts before you just pass it off as not important? Every time I bring a new point up, you spit out the same old response. Its not very productive.

I'd have to question whether they're new. I've seen a lot of repeat questions.

They are new points about the same previous topic.... rot just ignored the change in the statement and gave us his previous rebuttle, to which leafy then complained about which leads us to... now.

Rasq wrote:

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:When in doubt, use KJV. NIV is nice because they make study Bibles which have sections that analyze passages, but NIV is an attempt to make things easier to understand, and the translations are not always...accurate.

So you admit that some bibles are wrong? Well if some are wrong then there is the chance that KJV is wrong too. So logically any facts coming from KJV are null and void.

*Headbangs.
OK, so "Teaching about Evolution" and a lot of NSF approved textbooks brings up the point that whales have vestigial hip bones. Except those ain't hip bones. They've got a lot to do with the reproductive organs. After all, when your member weighs more then an adolescent human, you need some hard structure backing that up.

Because this fact is wrong, we can assume that everything in "Teaching about Evolution" is wrong. Flat-out wrong.
And because Teaching about Evolution is wrong, there's a chance that a lot of textbooks are wrong.
So, logically, any 'facts' coming out of a textbook are null and void.

You see where that argument falls apart? Reducto ad absurdum, reducto ad nauseum!
We know that the KJV and the NIV are accurate because they back-check against older manuscripts. Saying that they have translation problems is a dying argument in the academic world.

Leafy went wrong with going to the extreme saying that any point made in it is incorrect. However, the real thing is that not all bible's are interpeted the same, so some points may not be correct and you should often check with different sources (Two versions of the bible in this case) before you make a comment.

Rasq wrote:

LeafyOwNu2 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:So it was Internet regurgitation! Ya, I'm going to suggest that before you take the word of an atheist site at face value, you do a touch of research.

Since when was the internet not a good source of information?

http://www.timecube.com/
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-holocaust-folder.html
The first one is just hilarious.
So, what I'm saying here is that the internet CAN be a good source of information. But use your own brain when deciding what's true, and what's someone hiding behind an official-looking web URL.

So posting those links is somehow going to make any links that we used or have used possibly irrelevant and unuseful? No... that just proves not all the internet can be used. The site I used was partly reliable in the sense that they did have points (ones that didn't dig into the bible) that make sense.


Well now I would like to say something about the whole "boundaries" thing. Saying that Homosexuality is a perversion because it is having sex with the same gender is dumb. Why should gender be a boundry? Well... it isn't. The boundry is broken, seeing as how heterosexuality is odly not a perversion in most cases. The fact that i'd be broken one way but not the other is hard to believe and just stupid.

It sounds dumb, that heterosexuality should be as much as a perversion as homosexuality, but it should be if homosexuality is a perversion. It wouldn't make sense or be fair at all to have it be one way. I guess people draw the line when it goes from need to want. As in, we need to reproduce with the opposite gender, otherwise we would all die out as a race. However, we want to have sex with the opposite gender (in most cases, however, many homosexuals need to as its their only option). I made that point, but now i'd like to comment that if that was the case, it's incredibly stupid. Most humans do not have intercourse because they want to keep the human race continuing. Its purely out of want to, so whats the difference between wanting to have sex with women or men (as in women+women and men+men)? The only difference is that with one pair, you could make children, with the other, you can't. But wait... that doesn't matter, because all reproduction is done by want to, not by need to. Therefore meaning that homosexuality being a perversion is just a biased rule. Feel free to give your views.

Rot wrote:

Gauz, there is a difference between disagreeing and purposely construing things to be as insulting as possible. You treated me like an idiot, and I called you one.

When? Because I don't recall giving my views to also funtion as an insult.

Rot wrote:
The difference is I actually support my points with evidence, and you do not. Whether you disagree or not is not the point. You see, this is the debate section, not the opinion section.

Funny, because 90% of the debates here are opinionated.

Rot wrote:
It's the section where we deabte, which is to say we present arguments and then back those arguments up with evidence.

More so than often based off of opinions by the way...

Rot wrote:Furthermore, it is generally expected that debates will remain somewhat civil.

Insulting =/= civilized

rot wrote:I think I'm just on edge because I am sick and fucking tired of dealing with appeal to ridicule in religious debates. I don't expect everyone, or even most anyone, to agree with me, but I do expect you guys to think before you post, and try and maintain some semblance of tact or civility.

Well it wouldn't be much of a debate if everything was correct, then there would be nothing to really debate.... other than opinion (love how that keeps coming back up).

Gauz wrote:When? Because I don't recall giving my views to also funtion as an insult.

The way you've worded your arguments have been in a most insulting manner. Both your God's Plan argument and your Go Kill Everyone argument could have been worded with something we call tact. It would have been hard to do, since the arguments themselves assumed that your opponent was brain dead, which is generally pretty insulting, but probably could have done it. You'd have been better off making arguments based on fact rather than hearsay from teh Interwebz, though.

Gauz wrote:Funny, because 90% of the debates here are opinionated.

Picking apart my wording isn't going to help you, Gauz. Debates imply opinion, but the difference is that you can't have a debate without opinion, but you can have an opinion without being in a debate. My point should have been clear that this is the debate section, where you state your opinion and then support that opinion with evidence, the key being the bolded bit.

Gauz wrote:More so than often based off of opinions by the way...

But again, the key difference is the evidence, not whether or not it is based on opinion.

Gauz wrote:Insulting =/= civilized

And I didn't start insulting until the debate had already shed the guise of being civilized.

Gauz wrote:Well it wouldn't be much of a debate if everything was correct, then there would be nothing to really debate.... other than opinion (love how that keeps coming back up).

Actually, no, if we kept a debate civilized, we'd have plenty to debate about. You don't have to resort to logical fallacies like reductio ad ridiculum to make a debate work. In fact, in doing so, you make the debate not work. Logical fallacies have no place in a debate. But what I hate most about reductio ad ridiculum is that it means that the other side is a joke to you, and you can't even be bothered to show the other side the decency of minor respect to form real arguments, instead just trying to make it sound as ridiculous as possible. Of the logical fallacies, reductio ad ridiculum is probably among the most insulting to come up against, and I am sick and tired of it.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

The way you've worded your arguments have been in a most insulting manner. Both your God's Plan argument and your Go Kill Everyone argument could have been worded with something we call tact. It would have been hard to do, since the arguments themselves assumed that your opponent was brain dead, which is generally pretty insulting, but probably could have done it. You'd have been better off making arguments based on fact rather than hearsay from teh Interwebz, though.

Do you want me to put something in my debate posts to make sure no one takes it as an insult? I am in no way even remotely attempting to insult you. "Fact" in a religious debate? Bah. And like Leafy said, the internet was a source.

Rot wrote:
My point should have been clear that this is the debate section, where you state your opinion and then support that opinion with evidence, the key being the bolded bit.

And you think I didn't? I did support it with evidence, while the evidence was able to be proven false, it was still evidence.

Rot wrote:

And I didn't start insulting until the debate had already shed the guise of being civilized.

I'm sure.... however, I find it hard to believe that you had to be blatantly, and purposefully rude.

Gauz wrote:Do you want me to put something in my debate posts to make sure no one takes it as an insult? I am in no way even remotely attempting to insult you. "Fact" in a religious debate? Bah.

Fact? Reductio ad ridiculum is the opposite of fact. It is a logical fallacy generally used when facts are not present.

Gauz wrote:And like Leafy said, the internet was a source.

Ironically, Leafy talked about writing research papers, but if he actually knew what he was talking about, he would know that most websites are not credible sources. And this is exactly why. Both arguments you made were simply outright wrong, and you would have been able to tell had you used a more credible source.

Gauz wrote:And you think I didn't? I did support it with evidence, while the evidence was able to be proven false, it was still evidence.

Let me rephrase, then. You should support your arguments with evidence that couldn't be proven wrong by elementary school students.

Gauz wrote:I'm sure.... however, I find it hard to believe that you had to be blatantly, and purposefully rude.

Well, nthing else was getting the message across. Before I attacked your person, you just ignored any arguments I made.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Ironically, Leafy talked about writing research papers, but if he actually knew what he was talking about, he would know that most websites are not credible sources. And this is exactly why. Both arguments you made were simply outright wrong, and you would have been able to tell had you used a more credible source.

I'll admit they were incorrect on their bible debate, however, the sites I used still have credible information.

Rot wrote:

Well, nthing else was getting the message across. Before I attacked your person, you just ignored any arguments I made.

I didn't ignore everything you said.... I took what you said and said something else relative to the topic that was being discussed.

Gauz wrote:I'll admit they were incorrect on their bible debate, however, the sites I used still have credible information.

Wikipedia has credible information, but you still can't use it in a research paper as a source, because it is not considered credible.

Gauz wrote:I didn't ignore everything you said.... I took what you said and said something else relative to the topic that was being discussed.

Considering that there are something like three pages of me pulling out my hair because you keep bringing up arguments that are negated by free will...

*ahem*there is no god*ahem*

Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white.
They are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world!
...unless they're gay!

My question to religious homosexuals is:
Why on Earth would you ever want to be apart of something that is so against your lifestyle? Its like a black person wanting to be apart of the KKK.

Well, you've managed to raise all of the flimsy, worthless points that have already been destroyed in this thread. Necro successful.

I personally feel that all homosexuals should burn in hell, as what they do is against the bible's beliefs.

I know this is a harsh stance but it is very well justified.

Infraction: Flamebait

halo_sucks 5000 you are obviously a bible bashing fuckwit. The bible is full of shit as is most religion and to discriminate against homosexuals because of this is just fucking stupid. People should be able to do what they want if it doesn't cause harm to others. Fucking Q.E.D BITCH

Infraction: Douchebaggery

What I don't get, is why Being homosexually even fucking matters.


If some one is gay, it is none of your business.
So GTFO...

It matters because it is a crime against nature. Don't be so insulting Ziggy I am merely expressing myself just like NWA. I am not asking for you to agree I am just saying that it is wrong and that people shouldn't be gay.

Actually it isn't. There have been reported cases of homosexual animals. The only difference and why we see them is that we let them survive, and this one of the many reasons why we set ourselfs above the rest of the animal kingdom.

We have imagination and compassion and supposedly more civilised. Calling a group of people 'a crime against nature' just shows how got back to base line barabrism just because they aren't like you.

It's sad, because I read halowars's post, and saw it for the obvious bait that it was (I mean, seriously, who comes onto a thread and just says "I think gays should burn in hell"?). Then I saw Ziggy's post and was almost surprised that he managed to speak to halwars on the same level of intelligence and ignorance. That is quite a feat, there, Ziggy. I didn't know people could stoop to the idiocy that fills baits in a serious argument.

I'm more worried about where the hell did this guy come from?

halosucks_5000 wrote:I personally feel that all homosexuals should burn in hell, as what they do is against the bible's beliefs.

Anyone taking this seriously? It's obvious flamebait.

halosucks_5000 wrote:I know this is a harsh stance but it is very well justified.

That homosexuals should burn in Hell?

Ziggy wrote:halo_sucks 5000 you are obviously a bible bashing fuckwit.

And he takes the bait.

Ziggy wrote:The bible is full of shit as is most religion and to discriminate against homosexuals because of this is just fucking stupid.

*shrugs*

Ziggy wrote:People should be able to do what they want if it doesn't cause harm to others.

So, what, chronic depression is alright? What about Asperger's Syndrome?

Ziggy wrote:Fucking Q.E.D BITCH

Hardly.

halosucks_5000 wrote:It matters because it is a crime against nature. Don't be so insulting Ziggy I am merely expressing myself just like NWA. I am not asking for you to agree I am just saying that it is wrong and that people shouldn't be gay.

Yeah, well, you could learn to express yourself without being a prick about it. It saves many a civil conversation.

Vigil wrote:Actually it isn't. There have been reported cases of homosexual animals.

Na, and there's been cases of schizophrenic mice. Your point being?

Vigil wrote:The only difference and why we see them is that we let them survive, and this one of the many reasons why we set ourselfs above the rest of the animal kingdom.

Huh? You mean animals kill off homosexual animals?

Vigil wrote:We have imagination and compassion and supposedly more civilised. Calling a group of people 'a crime against nature' just shows how got back to base line barabrism just because they aren't like you.

I'd have to agree with 'crime against nature', as it is intended to dehumanize in the same manner as "Nigger", "Wop", "Chink", and "Gook".

Gold Spartan5 wrote:I'm more worried about where the hell did this guy come from?

Wherever trolls come from, I'd imagine.

Na, and there's been cases of schizophrenic mice. Your point being?

It present within nature, so how can it be against it?

Huh? You mean animals kill off homosexual animals?

Nah, they just don't breed or pass on their ways to offspring do they? There quite an evolutionary dead end. It's different for us, as they have all the same benefits and opprotunities that we all share.

I'd have to agree with 'crime against nature', as it is intended to dehumanize in the same manner as "Nigger", "Wop", "Chink", and "Gook".

Indeed, it's easier to hate a title rather than an individual.

Let me rephrase it, who gave him the url to get here?

Frankly I think it's someone from this site


If not



FUCK YOU


fucking twat

Vigil wrote:

Na, and there's been cases of schizophrenic mice. Your point being?

It present within nature, so how can it be against it?

I'd be hard-pressed to find a true crime against nature, given its competitive and evolutionary nature.

Huh? You mean animals kill off homosexual animals?

Nah, they just don't breed or pass on their ways to offspring do they? There quite an evolutionary dead end. It's different for us, as they have all the same benefits and opprotunities that we all share.[/quote]
Yeah... Except homosexual animals eat the same grass, eat the same meat, and sleep in the same fields/forests/streams/oceans that other animals do. False analogy.

I'd have to agree with 'crime against nature', as it is intended to dehumanize in the same manner as "Nigger", "Wop", "Chink", and "Gook".

Indeed, it's easier to hate a title rather than an individual.[/quote]
Now, if the Legions of Adolf Hitler are invading your homeland with the intent of eradicating your race, or the survival of the free world and your family depends on you invading the largest country in the world, toppling its dictatorial government, and eradicating that race, go ahead and spread the titles.

Anything less than that...

Ziggy and halosucks_5000 are posting from the same IP address. What a coincidence.

halosucks_5000 wrote:I personally feel that all homosexuals should burn in hell, as what they do is against the bible's beliefs.

I know this is a harsh stance but it is very well justified.

Yay! :face: