If I believed in God, I would crawl across my country on broken glass to tell one person about hell. You do not do this, so you do not believe in God either.

-British critic of Christians

1). Why don't Christians leave Gay's alone?

I've heard this often. The answer is, Jesus is love. if we follow God, and truly believe homosexuality is a sin, we would warn people. To save them from hell.

2). Why doesn't God allow Homosexuality?

He's God. An all powerful being. If you want to debate this, go debate it with God. When you die. It'll be too late to go back then, though.

3). Actual Reasons Against Homosexuality.

A). First of all, a lot of christians use the stupid line, "Anal sex isn't natural" when statistically, only 16% of gay couples have anal sex. The real reason I believe gay sex is medically wrong is because of the higher risk of HIV/AIDS spreading through sexual intercourse (i.e. Oral/Anal).

B). Psychologically, having parents of only one gender can be damaging for children. This has been proven. If you want to debate this, research it yourself.

C). Homosexuality might be naturally found among animals, however, that's not necessarily a good thing. Panda's will only care for one child at a time; they will leave others to die, that's natural. Doesn't make it right.



Please, no hating.

No references to the term, "homophobic" its a mysnomer. People aren't afraid of homosexuals. I don't dislike homosexuals; i simply disagree with homosexuality.

I also request people be respectful in any debating on this thread.

Thank You.

Daniel

A)

The real reason I believe gay sex is medically wrong is because of the higher risk of HIV/AIDS spreading through sexual intercourse (i.e. Oral/Anal)

Do you live in the 80s?
Do you think homosexuality was OK 40 years ago?
Seems to me that here you "disagree" with oral and anal sex, not homosexuality

B)
homosexual parenting is not the subject here, thats another debate (wich is actually a debate, not like homosexuality)

C)
natural doesn't make it right
unnatural doesn't make it wrong
what's your point?

i simply disagree with homosexuality.

i disagree with shrimp, i think it taste aweful. Maybe we should ban eating shrimp? oh wait the Bible already took care of that

edit: clarifications on the A) argument

Edited 4/11/2015 23:17:29

B). Psychologically, having parents of only one gender can be damaging for children. This has been proven. If you want to debate this, research it yourself.

Let me just be a bit clever ...and voila.

Psychologically, having parents of only two genders can be damaging for children. This has been proven. If you want to debate this, research it yourself.

-> Quote is based on a logical fallacy. EDIT: Correction, based on a false premise.

1). Christians should leave homosexuals alone, it's when homosexuals wish to become Christian themselves that Christians may explain to them that homosexuality is a sin and should be left behind.

2). I can't say myself why, but I can draw on the fact that sex is meant for reproduction. This doesn't mean you can't enjoy it within the boundaries set by God, i.e. marriage.

A) Anal and oral are possible within heterosexual relationships. STDs aren't generally a problem in long-term relationships that don't involve outside partners, provided the two involved in the relationship don't have an STD already.

B) There is actually evidence provided that children being raised by two same gender parents fare worse than those raised by two heterosexual parents in a stable relationship, though it's a bit harder to find, maybe because it's not considered politically correct and therefore avoided by many mainstream media outlets.

C) There are many arguments based on what is natural and unnatural. People continuously draw comparisons of what animals do to what humans should consider natural, but seem to forget that many "natural" things humans do are quite rare in nature. While we share similarities with many animals, this doesn't mean that anything they do is immediately natural for us to imitate.

I must say that, as hard as it may be to believe, activists are not too high and mighty to threaten those who refuse to support them with public shaming, job interference and worse if they speak out against same-sex marriage, even those who have been raised by same-sex parents and choose not to support the institution.

Edited 4/13/2015 11:01:14

Warlight is not the place to argue this. You're accomplishing nothing.

The title is politically incorrect, however, those who read this thread will be provided with a variety of different viewpoints. Even if no one on this thread yields their point of view, others will draw their own conclusions and perhaps even take the time to inform themselves on the issues being brought up here.

So it could, perhaps, accomplish something.

But it's not worth it, Taisho. This is Warlight! My issue here is that the people who will argue on this thread (and others like it) have already come to their own conclusions: either they are adamantly with you, or adamantly against you. No one is going to change their mind. It's useless trying to fight it out here.

Even if no one on this thread yields their point of view, others will draw their own conclusions and perhaps even take the time to inform themselves on the issues being brought up here.

So, in the end we are arguing in the hopes that an invisible audience to this thread might be persuaded?


Again.... no disrespect. But it's just not worth it and it's getting in the way of legitimately constructive activities for this community.

My issue here is that the people who will argue on this thread (and others like it) have already come to their own conclusions: either they are adamantly with you, or adamantly against you.

I think the vocal ones already have their opinion formed, but there are enough lurkers out there sitting on the fence, waiting to hear what the other side has to say. That's not the purpose of me posting on this thread, though.

No one is going to change their mind. It's useless trying to fight it out here.

So, in the end we are arguing in the hopes that an invisible audience to this thread might be persuaded?

The more input I have the more I can form and refine my own viewpoint on an issue.

I don't wish to manipulate someone into believing as I do, I'll let them draw their own conclusions based on what has been said, research conducted and their own personal experiences.

This is Warlight!

Again.... no disrespect. But it's just not worth it and it's getting in the way of legitimately constructive activities for this community.

This is the only forum I post on as of now, where I express my opinion on such matters. This is a community I am acquainted with and if I post it in the appropriate area (Off-topic forum) then it shouldn't concern those who aren't interested in Off-topic conversations.

And I too mean no disrespect.

I won't stop you then, my friend. But I still believe there are much better places to hold this discussion.

Peace out. :)

This thread needs to be destroyed

@Taishō, why is that quote a logical fallacy?

If you truly believe that there is eternal bliss waiting in Heaven for those who believe and that those who sin and do not repent will suffer eternally in Hell, isn't it the most heinous act of callousness not to do all that is in your power to help them find Jesus?

the purpose of these "debates" are not to convince the other side, but it isn't useless.

-For one it serves you as it forces you to think and form an opinion on an issue, allowing you to better understand the issue and elaborate sharper arguments everytime the issue is brought up.

-It also provide people reading the threads, that are undecided or have no clear opinion on the issue, to educate themselves by reading both side of the argument, and then use their critical thinking (hopefuly), to form an opinion; opinion wich then they could defend when the issue is brought up in another context than the warlight forum. Also it may give an incentive to the reader to actually research the question, as they read the arguments they can verify them if they think it is interesting.

-And last, the people starting these threads can't be let unopposed, the horrendousness of their ideas needs to be exposed everywhere.

If I believed in God, I would crawl across my country on broken glass to tell one person about hell. You do not do this, so you do not believe in God either.

-British critic of Christians

@Taishō, why is that quote a logical fallacy?

If you truly believe that there is eternal bliss waiting in Heaven for those who believe and that those who sin and do not repent will suffer eternally in Hell, isn't it the most heinous act of callousness not to do all that is in your power to help them find Jesus?

Assuming that to believe in God you must crawl across a country on broken glass to tell one person about hell.

If I were A, I would do B. You don't do B, therefore you are not A. (Affirming the Consequence, if I'm not mistaken)

I didn't talk about the moral justification behind the claim, I simply said it was a logical fallacy. Also, it's a Christian's responsibility to spread the faith through word and deed, but not their responsibility to convert you.

This thread is completely unnecessary this topic has already been strained and debated to its limit, we get it some people think Homosexuality is right and some think it is wrong, stop bringing it up Tyrion.

If I were A, I would do B. You don't do B, therefore you are not A

This statement is perfectly logical.
if A{true} => B{true} then B{false} => A{false}

an illogical statement would be
if A{true} => B{true} then B{true} => A{true}

no, no, no

the british quote is referring to he would, IF HE HAD TOO.

it isn't a logical fallacy; it's pointing out an unlikely possibility.

A)
The real reason I believe gay sex is medically wrong is because of the higher risk of HIV/AIDS spreading through sexual intercourse (i.e. Oral/Anal)


Do you live in the 80s?
Do you think homosexuality was OK 40 years ago?
Seems to me that here you "disagree" with oral and anal sex, not homosexuality

:P

No, I was born in 2001. I never lived in the 80's.

not sure i can disagree with a type of sex; I've never had sex of any kind.

The title is politically incorrect, however, those who read this thread will be provided with a variety of different viewpoints. Even if no one on this thread yields their point of view, others will draw their own conclusions and perhaps even take the time to inform themselves on the issues being brought up here.

Politically incorrect?

You can't say anything in america without offending SOMEONE.

If I were A, I would do B. You don't do B, therefore you are not A


This statement is perfectly logical.
if A{true} => B{true} then B{false} => A{false}

an illogical statement would be
if A{true} => B{true} then B{true} => A{true}

You're right, it's called Contraposition.

I stand corrected. It's called a false premise, which compromises the truth value, though has no impact on the logical validity.

Oops :P

Do you live in the 80s?
Do you think homosexuality was OK 40 years ago?
Seems to me that here you "disagree" with oral and anal sex, not homosexuality


:P

No, I was born in 2001. I never lived in the 80's.

It seems the only "argument" you have against homosexuality is because of aids.
In the 80's, when aids appeared (before that, aids didn't exist/wasn't a relevent issue), people thought aids was only a homosexual desease.
You say you are against homosexuality because aids spread through oral and anal sex (as if these type of sex were only of homosexual nature). So here the logic would say that you are actally against anal and oral sex, because of aids transmission, not homosexuality.(and you should then also be against vaginal sex, for the same reason)
Btw, studies have shown that the risk of being infected through oral sex is very low compared to vaginal and anal sex (although studies does seem to indicate that the risk of transmission is higher for anal sex than vaginal sex)

"In a nutshell", aside from the faith argument against homosexuality, you didn't provide any (reasonable) argument against homosexuality

Edited 4/12/2015 01:18:46

Because there isn't
Thats what Im trying to say.

Its a moral issue, so people should shut up about it.




________________________________________________________________________________________________



On another note, there IS evidence why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

It's simply repressed for political correctness.

Hello

This statement is perfectly logical.
if A{true} => B{true} then B{false} => A{false}

Yes, both statements are semantical equal (similar truth table).


However:
1) Following statement is a tautology: "Nonsense" ==> "Any other statement"

2) If you truly believe that there is eternal bliss waiting in Heaven for those who believe and that those who sin and do not repent will suffer eternally in Hell
--> The negation of "to believe" is something like "to not believe" and not "to sin".

A practicing homosexual who changes his mind (=repents) about his homosexuality will quit his homosexual activities as a result of his changed mind. I know that some very mainstream branches of "Christianity" want to sell you this as the gospel. However this certainly is no gospel (= good news) but extremely shitty news without any hope. I'm sure that the good news is "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish butt have eternal life." I would bite my tongue before asking an unbeliever to repent about his homosexuality but instead I'd like to ask every homosexual + straight guy to change his mind about the Son.