My Opinion On Homosexuals

[Jack Reed]

Are you familiar with the Chris Rock routine about N-word (not referring to nuns) and Black people? Well, there's gay people, and then there's "faggots". The former are decent people who don't push their lifestyle on other people. The latter call you a "homophobe" (how lame) if you don't support every aspect of their lifestyle.

[psychosemitic]

well some people are homofobes, i mean there are people who are gamblers,drinkers,promiscuous and then have the gaul to tell a queer person that they are sinning

i to belive it is a sin, but can a sinner judge another sinner? whatever people do in their home is their buisness however i dont support gay marrige

[Jack Reed]

psychosemitic said:

well some people are homofobes, i mean there are people who are gamblers,drinkers,promiscuous and then have the gaul to tell a queer person that they are sinning

i to belive it is a sin, but can a sinner judge another sinner? whatever people do in their home is their buisness however i dont support gay marrige

Yeah, some people are homophobes, but there aren't as many of them as the homosexual activists say. "Homophobia" literally means fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Most people, who don't like them, aren't afraid of them IMO. Personally, I look at the individual rather than their group, and that includes homosexuals.

[psychosemitic]

jackreed1 said:

psychosemitic said:

well some people are homofobes, i mean there are people who are gamblers,drinkers,promiscuous and then have the gaul to tell a queer person that they are sinning

i to belive it is a sin, but can a sinner judge another sinner? whatever people do in their home is their buisness however i dont support gay marrige

Yeah, some people are homophobes, but there aren't as many of them as the homosexual activists say. "Homophobia" literally means fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Most people, who don't like them, aren't afraid of them IMO. Personally, I look at the individual rather than their group, and that includes homosexuals.

well Homophobe is easier on the tounge than anti-homosexualism and anti-homosexualite lol

[Jack Reed]

psychosemitic said:

jackreed1 said:

Yeah, some people are homophobes, but there aren't as many of them as the homosexual activists say. "Homophobia" literally means fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Most people, who don't like them, aren't afraid of them IMO. Personally, I look at the individual rather than their group, and that includes homosexuals.

well Homophobe is easier on the tounge than anti-homosexualism and anti-homosexualite lol

LOL That's true. I've known and liked several homosexuals. I didn't judge them based on one aspect of their lifestyle. I know that I've sinned too, just not in the same ways. I don't need religion to keep me from doing things like lying or stealing. However, sexual sins are different. I would've been a minor version of Gene Simmons if it wasn't for religion. ;-) It probably kept me from getting into trouble.

[psychosemitic]

you know gene simmons (haim weitzman) was a Rabbinical student

[Jack Reed]

psychosemitic said:

you know gene simmons (haim weitzman) was a Rabbinical student

It doesn't surprise me. A lot of preacher's kids grow up to be wild people too. I've seen it happen in my own family. Frank and Jesse James' dad was a Baptist minister.

[tonynatuzzi]

Gene Simmons has claimed that he has had sex with over 3,000 women mostly groupies ofcourse,if thats true than he's the motherf*cking man.

[blueskygod]

Hahahahahahahahaha another gay post. Jeez how many guys! Enough! Homosexuality is all cool and everyhting, but its not tax exwmpt so its not a religion, nor is it an ideology or a REAL philosophy

[metrosensual]

I don't understand why religion becomes incorporated into such a scientifically - oriented forum. Religion and science are arch enemies.

"Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin."

.........."Heretics and Heresies", 1874

[Planet Asia]

my opinion on homosexuality is that its an abomination to God the Father. However, what people do in the privacy of there bedrooms is their business, whether its right or wrong because they have God to answer to. I would appreciate if people would keep their sexuality to themselves, being open with your sexuality to me isn't going to win you any cool points.

[metrosensual]

bertrand said:

my opinion on homosexuality is that its an abomination to God the Father. However, what people do in the privacy of there bedrooms is their business, whether its right or wrong because they have God to answer to. I would appreciate if people would keep their sexuality to themselves, being open with your sexuality to me isn't going to win you any cool points.

Fair enough. I don't have 'God' to answer to because 'God' doesn't exist.

[Planet Asia]

metrosensual said:

bertrand said:

my opinion on homosexuality is that its an abomination to God the Father. However, what people do in the privacy of there bedrooms is their business, whether its right or wrong because they have God to answer to. I would appreciate if people would keep their sexuality to themselves, being open with your sexuality to me isn't going to win you any cool points.

I know you don't think God exists. It makes it easier to justify what you do. But whatever floats your boat is your business, just don't be up in the face with it.

Fair enough. I don't have 'God' to answer to because 'God' doesn't exist.

[Drooperdoo]

Disdain for homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to be rooted in religion. Uber-humanist H.G. Wells--who was extremely permissive and even argued in favor of gay rights in 1900 (when no one was)*--said that, from a purely scientific basis, anybody who hasn't reproduced has failed. Any lifestyle that leads away from the perpetuation of the species is--technically (from a biological view-point)--bad.
So, from that standpoint, homosexuality is undesirable; but then so is priestly abstinence, old-maidism, hedonistic playboyism with its Peter Pan-ism and refusal to marry or settle down.
From a Darwinian sense, all these groups are losers insofar as their genes won't be passed on.
Is this such a bad thing?

P.S.--To my religious brothers, I must pose the question: What if homosexuality is a natural mechanism so that the person's genes won't be passed on? [In that case, the homosexuality isn't the disease itself, but the mechanism to prevent other misfired genes to be put back into the gene-pool.]

P.P.S.--It's ironic that gays demand thateveryone else accept that they're born gay, that they can't be changed. Fair enough. But then the homosexual activists fight to change the rest of us--as if antipathy toward them weren't hardwired into our dna. I mean, disgust for deviancy is almost certainly innate--and can't be "taught" out of us, anymore than we can be trained to like ugliness or deformity. People naturally despise the weak and the deviant, because their existence offends the life-force in all of us. The life-force says, "Breed! Love! Perpetuate the species". Anything that contradicts that provokes a response that is probably hardwired into us--and that response is disgust. We stay away from those who offend our sensibilities, our prime-directive.

* H.G. Wells' book "Anticipations" describes the futuristic world of a hundred years hence [the year 2000]. He saw a society in turmoil, whose old values were overthrown. He argued that, at some point, society would have to grant rights to "celibates," and not celibates in a nunly sense (he adds).

[metrosensual]

drooperdoo said:

Disdain for homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to be rooted in religion. Uber-humanist H.G. Wells--who was extremely permissive and even argued in favor of gay rights in 1900 (when no one was)*--said that, from a purely scientific basis, anybody who hasn't reproduced has failed. Any lifestyle that leads away from the perpetuation of the species is--technically (from a biological view-point)--bad.
So, from that standpoint, homosexuality is bad; but then so is priestly abstinence, old-maidism, hedonistic playboyism with its Peter Pan-ism and refusal to marry or settle down.
From a Darwinian sense, all these groups are losers insofar as their genes won't be passed on.
Is this such a bad thing?

P.S.--To my religious brothers, I must pose the question: What if homosexuality is a natural mechanism so that the person's genes won't be passed on? [In that case, the homosexuality isn't the disease itself, but the mechanism to prevent other misfired genes to be put back into the gene-pool.]

P.P.S.--By the same token, disgust for deviancy is probably innate--and can't be "taught" out of us, anymore than we can be trained to like ugliness or deformity. People naturally despise the weak and the deviant, because their existence offends the life-force in all of us. The life-force says, "Breed! Love! Perpetuate the species". Anything that contradicts that provokes a response that is probably hardwired into us--and that response is disgust. We stay away from those who offend our sensibilities, our prime-directive.

* H.G. Wells' book "Anticipations" describes the futuristic world of a hundred years hence [the year 2000]. He saw a society in turmoil, whose old values were overthrown. He argued that, at some point, society would have to grant rights to "celibates," and not celibates in a nunly sense (he adds).

Well, as such highly intelligent creatures we have personal choice. I don't think it's fair to call people who don't want children 'losers'. Some of us, like myself, don't really like children and don't want to have any.