Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 28  Next

Oh it needs fixing alright. And please don't use the "a part of who we are" when it's who you are, stop trying to convince us that what you do is ok with everybody, cause it's not.

   

If everyone were able to make a living that could sustain themselves...don't you think the prices would be driven up? Of course they would be. It would be a never-ending vicious cycle of inflation until out dollar is the equivalent of the yen.

   

I have to agree with some of the earlier posters that there is a problem with portraying anything but heterosexuality as a disease.

There have been studies which show that the tendency to be religious (or not) seems to have some genetic basis.


It's difficult to think of many historical examples of homosexuality or bisexuality causing social harm. Richard the Lionhearted died without heirs, which was unfortunate. That example aside, the slate is pretty much blank.

On the other hand, one can point to both great good and great harm that has been done in the name of religion. Opinions will vary, naturally, about whether religion has been a positive or negative influence overall, but there is much more reason to argue that it has had a major influence on human history, good or bad.

But, if it does have some genetic component, as it appears, there is nothing to stop people from considering religious tendencies to be a genetic "defect," is there? A disease? What would you think of stigmatising it, and making attempts to "cure" people of it?

There is a lot of natural variation among people. Some of them will be clearly harmful or beneficial, many will not. Unless you can point to some clear and decisive way in which homosexuality and bisexuality cause harm, then I suggest that you treat it as no more of a disease than, say, religion.

   

No. I have no tolerance for christianity, especially when it displays what I consider abject bigotry. You just see me attack christians exhibitting that behaviour and connect the 2. I did the same to muslims exhibiting that behaviour.

I don't ascribe that behaviour to all christians nor do I hate or discriminate them based entirely on what they believe even if I find what they believe to be intolerable.

I've never hated or discriminated against a christian because of his beliefs alone. I have however had that done to me by christians based entirely on my atheism. That doesn't mean you all do it.

BTW, there is a conspiracy of christians to convert people just as there is in islam. Both groups claim its an article of there faith.

I don't tolerate that because its an action against me.



Its not surprising that you are having trouble differentiating "tolerate" with "do also".

My Anti-christians statements are directed at the article of faith and the actions of christians. Its a case of what thet are doing. I don't hate them based solely on what they believe. I may hate there actions or beliefs.

See the difference? Perhaps you can't which is why you seem to think that tolerating homosexuals somehow means you have to engage in it or think its OK.

You don't have to like it or even to think its OK. You just have to respect thats its there choice and they don't deserve to be hated or discriminated against simply because they choose it.

I despise christianity but that doesn't stop me from liking christians or associating with them. They may do something that I don't like and I will criticize it but that isn't intolerance or discrimination.

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to let them do whatever they want to you.



No. You just want it to be.

Once again I wil point out that virtually all the forum members holding "genocidal muslim" or "intolerant of homosexual" positions are card carrying praticing christians.

Not all though. Just as the statement "while there may be peaceful muslims, islam is not a peaceful religion" is true so is "while there may be tolerant christians. christianity isn't a tolerant faith".

Both are true.



Pound for pound I bet that liberals are the most tolerant people on earth. (Note: liberals doesn't mean Liberal party of Canada). Being liberal minded is why we are called liberals.

From: religious tolerance.org



Its quite evident as to who is intolerant of homosexuals and why. Which group do you fall into?

   

I will not go so far as the muslims do and advocate the death of homosexuals, but I will note that they are unreliable as security risks (something that is well-established as a fact in the world intelligence community), they are the most highly educated segment of society, a disproportionate number of them go into the arts, they also have a disproportionate inclination to domestic violence with both gays and lesbians taking the top statistics demographically in the USA, their sexual procilivities would be highly offensive in a heterosexual context, and both gay men and lesbian women represent a disproportionate number of child molesters with most of those convicted of child molest having been victims of a lesbian or homoexual assault in childhood.

So forgive me if while they may have some admirable traits they also have some very serious problems that I would not encourage any child to emulate.

   

DerbyX:

A little food for thought, from a religious sociology study recently done at Baylor University.

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?actio ... tory=41678

If you look over their figures in detail, you will see that, for example, those who are strongly against gay marriage tend to be those who believe in an authoritarian god, while those who believe in a distant god tend not to mind the idea. And that tends to be roughly as true of Jews as it is of Christians, and to be true across denominations of Christianity. This also extends across almost all "hot button" religious topics, for example, quite a few believers in an authoritarian god oppose stem cell research, but of those who believe in a distant god, only 3% do.

Studies like this are politically touchy, and the authors declined to fully analyse all of their results, but looking at them myself, I tend towards a conclusion that those who believe in a more authoritarian god, for example, also lean towards a view of society which is more authoritarian in many respects. Their god is angry and judgemental, and, to some extent, so are they.

Anyway, my point is that this is not an easy chicken-egg sort of problem. You see social ills, and want to lay them at the doorstep of Christianity, but it doesn't look that simple -- if the person you point to as an example of Christianity gone wrong were a Jew, or perhaps even a Hindu or a Muslim, most of their attitudes might well be the same. Take religion out of the picture, and for all you know, the follower of the authoritarian god might line up behind an authoritarian (but secular) ideology or leader. Doesn't seem like that would be a big improvement.

Bad things are done in the name of religion, sure, but that may not be entirely the result of the particular teachings of the various religions. That might just reflect the underlying attitudes of the people concerned.

   

So, let's look at some examples where everybody does have the ability to participate. TV for example. So if everyone where able to afford a TV the price of TVs would go through the roof until someone couldn't afford them? I don't think this is actually the way it works. The theory is, I believe, that at some price point the market, (someone who's fed up with paying too much or wants to make some cash) will come up with an idea to fix the problem. Canada is running out of land? trees? the ability to grow food even in harsh conditions (hot houses)? No, I didn't really think so.

   

Beware the Christian agenda. They just want to convert your children.

   

Wrong. If you truly believe such obvious propaganda then I am really sorry for you. You are, in a way, a victim. Thats truly sad that people have somehow warped your mind to think that.

   

Disease: A disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavourable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.

A disease does not always harm people by definition it does not have too. So how are homosexuals not a disease? I don’t think they are functioning the way they are intended to be. If we are meant to be homosexuals then why even have an opposite sex? Or why not just reproduce asexually? For those evolutionists what does humanity gain from homosexuals? I don’t see many benefits to homosexuality and the greatest loss would not being able to have your own family (unless adopted).

I really don’t care what people do and screw but when you try and make people have to learn about it that is not right to me. That harms society by forcing opinions especially on young people. Actually I don’t remember heterosexual orientated classes in school either so why do we need homosexual ones? I really have nothing against homosexuals personally but I'm not going to approve of what they do or those who try and force others to accept it.

   

Not only have I seen studies like this before, I have posted about them. You may note that I said that while not all christians believe a certain way it is very telling that those who exhibit intoolerance to the point of extremeism are almost all self-professed practicing christians (conservatives too but who's counting).

I simply point out the obvious that the same people that extol the virtues of a tolerant and benevolent faith exhibit such behaviour concerning the beliefs and choices other people make.

Note that it was I who pointed out the difference between liberal & conservative christians where it was quite obvious that liberal christians (those believing in a distant god no doubt) are tolerant of homosexuals.



I agree. I'm not sure what point you are making though.



Really? What social ills are you referring to? Gambling? Drug and alcohol abuse? Are you saying I am wrong holding christians accoutable for intolerant behaviour when they themselves state they are and use their faith as a reason? Who do I blame for that?

The fact is that when intolerance against homosexuals arises it is invariably linked to the argument "homosexuality is a sin". If I can't lay that at the feet of the faith they use to attack homosexuality then where does it go?



I'd say the same thing. I'd blame the person first and if his actual faith was promoting intolerance against homosexuality I'd blame that too, especially if they turn around and say their faith is one of tolerance in the same breath.

I have do that very thing to the muslims I work with who equate homosexuality as a curable disease and would do so here if there were any muslims posting such garbage.



Of course since I am objecting to the authoritarian manner of the person to begin with it wouldn't change much would it? I have the same opinion about drugs and firearms and they aren't related to religion. People deserve the freedom to choose. I argue this against authoritarian people all the time and religion isn't an issue.



I believe thats my position also. Just as I say that not all muslims are violent, I say that not all christians are intolerant.

Just as a muslim cannot preach violence against non-believers then turn around and say islam is a religion of peace; christians cannot preach intolerance against homosexuals then say christianity is a tolerant religion.

If you say I am blaming the faith for what people do well you would be mostly right. The problem is the faith when people interpret and use it in such a manner.

   

How is red hair not a disease? How is Blood type O not a disease.



Really? How are they "intended to function". Homosexuality doesn't impact on their survivability does it?



If we were "meant" to be to be heterosexual then why are there any homosexuals to begin with.



Why not just make the act of reproducing a life necessity? Pon Far anyone?



Those life and death fashion situations clearly favour homosexual survival.



Homosexuality doesn't prevent the having of children, both biological or adopted.



Like how religion is forced on people?



Shame on them for teaching children tolerance like that.



Its quite evident you missed quite alot in school. Hint: Another word for "hetrosexual oriented classes" is "sex education" or "health classes". Funny but they taught me all about sexual intercourse (the "right way" of course). Explaining the nature of homosexuality to adolescents who are potentially homosexuals seems pretty reasonable. I don't have a womb yet I was "forced" to watch childbirth in all its gory glory.



Tolerance isn't about "approving" and those others aren't forcing you to like it or engage in it. Its all about accepting that those people have a lifestyle that differs from yours and that its their choice and its OK.

   

I can cite a US Government study for each and very one of those little factoids I posted. I'll go through the trouble of hunting down the links for you if you won't dismiss them out of hand. Most of that is from the 2000 Status of Violent Crime in America Report and I doubt that the figures have varied much since then.

You will note that there's some good mixed in with the rest.

As an employer in the private sector I've preferred to hire gays as they tend to be more reliable than smokers or single mothers and the quality of their work is much more consistent. So while I am biased agains their practices I am biased for them as individuals who can do the best job possible in some circumstances.

You can simply ask someone in an intelligence agency about the initial comment - the converse of that comment is that Mormons are the best security risks. I've never really delved into all that security crapola to find out why, but I'm sure there are legitimate reasons for these things.

   

Sure, because they're subject to blackmail in societies where they're stigmatised. Get rid of the stigma and the security issue goes away.

While all agree that domestic violence is underreported in every demographic, and that figures can't be much more than educated guesses, those working with abuse victims in the gay and lesbian communities estimate that around 25% of homosexuals will be victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives. This is, as close as anyone can guess, the same rate as is found among heterosexuals.
(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence in 2001, A Report of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (2002).)

Huh? What proclivities are you referring to? Gay people may feel a little more free to rock the boat, in terms of sexual norms, than do heterosexuals overall, but so do subsets of the heterosexual community. Maybe those who are already stigmatised as deviants feel freer to break other sexual rules, because they no longer have anything to lose. Maybe some gays, historically, were having anonymous flings because that was about all that society would give them a shot at. Your unclear and sweeping generalisation does nothing for your argument, since the only truly unique behaviour in the GLBT community is pride parades.

There are two kinds of child molesters. By far the largest category are what are referred to as "situational offenders," they are people who are attracted to adults, but who, for one reason or another, did not limit themselves to adults. They tend to be male, and heterosexual. A much smaller group are pedophiles. Pedophiles have no sexual interest in adults at all, they are entirely fixated on those below the age of puberty. They tend to be male, and their victims, more often than not, are boys. But just as men whose only sexual interest is little girls are in no way representative of the straight community, pedophiles who molest boys are not at all representative of the gay community. It's a sickness all its own. Anyone who is attracted to adults of whatever gender is not a pedophile, so if by "gay" and "lesbian" you are referring to people who are attracted to postpubescent members of their own sex, then exactly 100% of them are not pedophiles.

Conflating the two is a little like calling for sanctions against men, because virtually all of those who commit sexual offenses against other people are men.

Nobody's advocating that kids be encouraged to emulate anyone, Bart.

   

You're certain of that?

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10 ... 28  Next