I'm not sure either cause I don't think there really is a difference

Religion A opposes homosexuality
Religion B opposes homosexuality

So again, my question, is how would removing the single religion of Christianity from the planet somehow make the planet a happy peaceful place?

Wouldn't the other regions that oppose homosexuality, abortion, etc, still oppose those things even with Christianity gone?

5/5/2010 2:40:09 PM

I already clarified my statement when responding to Grumpy.

5/5/2010 2:41:17 PM

nm i found it

[Edited on May 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM. Reason : and i call bs]

5/5/2010 2:45:59 PM

even if there was no religion there would still be bigots. i've never seen anything in the bible about illegal immigrants but there is a lot of xenophobic hate directed their way (going beyond any reasonable concerns). people use religion as an excuse for their being a dick, if there wasn't religion they would just find another excuse or just be dicks without one. in the same way that religion didn't create morals or right and wrong, it also didn't create discrimination and hate.

5/5/2010 3:59:50 PM

Actually, most religious people argue that religion is the basis for morality.

5/5/2010 4:04:34 PM

well i would disagree, and so would you, so are you still gonna use that as your response? that's a terrible way to construct an argument.

Quote :

"And then I'd ask "Why?""

same reason we picked on the ginger kid all through grade school... "because"

[Edited on May 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2010 4:05:25 PM

Quote :

"inate"

yep, yall fags can have her

5/5/2010 5:59:02 PM

country start Chely Wright just came out too
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36917532/

so that’s a christian singer, a country star, and the leader of the Family Research Council all gay. Weird...

5/5/2010 8:03:22 PM

I'll respond to the argument that even if you eliminated religion, you'd still have bigotry. Yes, that's true. Religion is undoubtedly one of the root causes of bigotry, though. Many people will point to their respective holy book as a reason to be against homosexuality. Most Christians won't even they say they hate gays, probably because they don't. They'll say something like, "Well, it's not that I am casting judgment on homosexuals, it's just that God's law says..." So, they defer to "God's judgment" as if it's an actual person with some separate morality from us. It's a great way to shirk responsibility.

The entire basis of Christianity encourages bigotry, come to think of it. The idea of the Jews being "God's chosen people" is very offensive to me. Why would God favor a small sect of people over another? You would think God was above separating humans based on skin color or ethnic background.

You will always have people that hate for the sake of hating. As long as people can point to religion as a justification for that hate, religion is still a problem. If you want to rewrite the bible to only include the good stuff, then do that, and I won't care if you believe in fairy tales. As long as you keep carrying around the complete bible, that includes the old law and all the bullshit that I find morally corrupt, then I will pick out the scriptures that are wrong, and I will ask that you defend them.

[Edited on May 5, 2010 at 8:33 PM. Reason : ]

5/5/2010 8:32:42 PM

Quote :

"That was an indictment of all religion, sorry for the misunderstanding."

I'm not sure that any religion has to do with our presence in Iraq. Saddam's regime was pretty secular.

Of course, if your point is that "If all history were completely different then it would be different," then ... i mean ... yeah.

Quote :

"That's kind of pointless, isn't it? Were you opposed to it on moral grounds or something?"

This kind of misunderstanding is why the debate on both subjects is so retarded. You don't have to be religious to think, "Hmm, killing people is bad" and you don't have to be religious to think that maybe life starts at some point before your head pops out your mom's vagina. Put them together, and you hardly have to be religious to be opposed to abortion.

As to homosexuality...well, I guess I wasn't against it per se, but against gay marriage and the like. I suppose I still am, but I give so little of a damn about it that I'd happily trade it for almost anything. As to why, I think it was mostly that I thought marriage had a function in society that could really only be served by opposite-sex pairings.

Quote :

"The entire basis of Christianity encourages bigotry, come to think of it."

I'm not buying it. The New Testament is pretty clear on the point that it's not biased in favor or against any ethnic background.

And yeah, the Old Testament has some bad shit in it. So does the Constitution. I don't see you demanding that people reject it because there's pro-slavery stuff in there.

5/6/2010 1:32:16 AM

Alright, I quickly scanned through the names of people in this thread, and they were all pretty familiar...

And all pretty much pro- and ambi- gay rights based on what I recall about folks and their commentary.

So I assume this is a perverted religious argument at this point.

Am I right?

5/6/2010 1:42:34 AM

Quote :

" And yeah, the Old Testament has some bad shit in it. So does the Constitution. I don't see you demanding that people reject it because there's pro-slavery stuff in there. "

Yeah, but the Constitution is not the infallible word of God.

5/6/2010 2:26:23 AM

^Unless you're a Libertarian

5/6/2010 2:27:37 AM

hahaha

5/6/2010 2:55:03 AM

Quote :

" This kind of misunderstanding is why the debate on both subjects is so retarded. You don't have to be religious to think, "Hmm, killing people is bad" and you don't have to be religious to think that maybe life starts at some point before your head pops out your mom's vagina. Put them together, and you hardly have to be religious to be opposed to abortion. "

Wait, are you saying that we don't need religion after all? Glad to see you've come around.

It's impossible to tell whether an individual person would have been a bigot if religion hadn't been present in their life. But without it, they surely would have had one less reason.

And finally, don't act like there isn't bigotry in the New Testament. I'll be happy to cite passages, but then I'm sure someone will say "women should never speak" is taken out of context.

5/6/2010 11:36:23 AM

Religion gives people reason to do good things too. Have you considered the fact that conflicts have been avoided due to religion?

5/6/2010 1:29:37 PM

[citation needed]

Sure, I never claim religion has done no good for humanity. It is my opinion that the net impact of religion on humanity is negative. Humanity will be better off when it is gone.

5/6/2010 1:33:01 PM

Skydaddy lovers itt.

I'm just sorry she feels the need to continue to support a religion that trashes everything about her. It trashes her for being female, it trashes her for being homosexual and it trashes her for being human. What kind of dumb ass god made people so imperfect?

It was a fucking setup from the beginning. The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being accidentally forgot that they were going to pick that fruit from the tree? Bullshit. The tree was there to allow them to fuck up and, by definition, this supposedly loving, wonderful god knew before he ever created them that they would fuck up (And seriously, do NOT use that "without evil you wouldn't know what good is" or "freewill" bullshit arguments, because that can all be shot down in a few sentences at most). He created them knowing they'd fuck up and then he'd punish all of humanity for it. Fucking hilarious. It takes an incredibly simpleminded motherfucker to believe that shit. I've never heard of anything so self contradictory as 99% of these proposed gods and the ones that aren't self contradictory are either so worthless that there's no reason to even posit their existence or they're simply a re-labeling of natural processes as "god".

Original sin is the most bullshit guilt trip I've ever seen laid upon a population and the number of people who actually buy that shit is incredible. But hey, what does it matter if it keeps the collection plates full, right?

5/6/2010 4:26:14 PM

Quote :

"Religion is undoubtedly one of the root causes of bigotry, though"

thats not true, this is very much in question. and you glanced over it because i think you know that.

5/6/2010 4:54:55 PM

It is true. insert God Hates Fags signs here.

It is not the only source, but there it is.

5/6/2010 5:02:42 PM

It's also one of the root causes of tolerance.

5/6/2010 5:11:47 PM

^
Explain please, I'd love to hear this...

5/6/2010 5:15:17 PM

Quote :

"Wait, are you saying that we don't need religion after all?"

Right. Because I said that in one specific case it was possible to reach the same conclusion without religion, I clearly meant that in all cases we can just toss it out the window. Don't be a fuckhead.

Quote :

"It is true. insert God Hates Fags signs here."

If you use the craziest assholes in a group as its representative then you're going to have a pretty low opinion of every group ever.

5/7/2010 2:25:21 PM

(Off main topic but a rebuttal to Saab turbo)

Well first of all, I would argue that when choosing between Christianity and naturalism you have two fundamental choices...Freedom vs. Autonomy...

My reasoning is that if you take naturalism, you are merely the product of time+matter+chance and all of our actions including responding to this thread are merely the result of again time+matter+chance...

Christianity is separated from Autonomy by the tree. Without the tree there is autonomy...with the tree there is freedom. And Freedom does not come without a price. It comes at a price both the party receiving freedom and the party distributing freedom.

What you guys think? Any logical flaws in this that I'm missing?

As Steve Turner said:

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear,
"State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!"

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

[Edited on May 7, 2010 at 10:12 PM. Reason : Time+matter+chance]

5/7/2010 9:59:17 PM

^ you're missing the obvious flaw that if God knows when, where, and why everything will happen, and you're destined from before birth to go to heaven or hell, you have no freedom. You're just an actor in a movie.

So unless you believe that the Xtian God is not omniscient, then freedom as you define it doesn't exist.

Further, you underestimate "chance." Chance means that the future from a "naturalist" perspective is unpredictable. Which means that when we humans decipher means to predict the universe, even in a limited sense, then we are expressing true freedom, that wouldn't be allowed for under most interpretations of Christianity.

5/7/2010 11:01:43 PM

^good statement there on the omniscient God...i've run into that point before but i'll have to do some more pondering on it.

any atheists agree with Dawkins quote "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music"?

Anyway, back to the Christian singer...i personally believe that her statement about choosing between faith and sexual orientation is improperly founded:

I believe that Christianity is not a pick and choose faith. You can't take part of it away without taking all of it away. Jesus said to pick up our cross daily and follow him. It requires complete surrender. I think when you take bits a pieces out of the Bible, IE what God has told us, you might as well take the whole thing away. I believe everything is intertwined.

To a Christian, "God is like the sun, you can't look at it, but without it you can't see anything else." - GK Chesterton. Thus I believe that God should be the reason behind everything we do. Does that mean holy huddle 24/7. No, but it does mean that the things that we do should not undermine who God wants us to be.

5/8/2010 7:57:45 AM

Quote :

"I believe that Christianity is not a pick and choose faith. You can't take part of it away without taking all of it away. Jesus said to pick up our cross daily and follow him. It requires complete surrender. I think when you take bits a pieces out of the Bible, IE what God has told us, you might as well take the whole thing away. I believe everything is intertwined. "

This is senseless to me, for many reasons, but particularly if you look at the historical development of the religion and its influences. It didn't spring-forth wholesale as-is. It was influenced and developed over time by various political and social forces, starting from around 3000BC, and has always been interpreted in whatever way the prevailing political power wanted it to be interpreted.

And when portions are so blatantly contradictory of each other, that's further reason not to view it as an all or nothing situation.

And on top of that, you ignore the fact that people of non-christian faiths have religious experiences at least equivalent to that of Christians. Wouldn't this mean that the Christian god is the same as the buddhist god or hindu god or muslim god? If all these faiths have what people perceive as divine guidance, what makes a single person's view of what the Bible said the one true view?

[Edited on May 8, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/8/2010 1:00:07 PM

At this point, many Christians will revert back to the statement that faith doesn't require proof or understanding, but rather only (blind) acceptance. Reminds me of something...

Quote :

"“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. “The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’ “‘But,’ says Man, ‘The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’ “‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. “‘Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. “Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo’s kidneys, but that didn’t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best- selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God."

- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (http://scott.yang.id.au/2005/10/the-babel-fish/)

5/8/2010 1:18:16 PM

Quote :

"And when portions are so blatantly contradictory of each other, that's further reason not to view it as an all or nothing situation."

Its important to be specific with examples when you make a statement like this. I am not saying there are not arguable contradictions but sometimes when someone makes a statement like this they have heard this statement and just know the statement and don't know a single contradiction. I am not saying that you don't, but I am saying that usually generalizing statements instead of specifics can be harmful. For example, I am guilty of talking badly about old Woodrow Wilson because he was one of the original progressives. However, I have only heard that and I haven't read or researched up on it myself and don't know too much about him other than he had some certain ideas about the constitution that i disagree with. That's not to say it isn't true, but that is to say that I have a responsibility to research (which I plan on doing but haven't gotten to that yet...still reading up on Lincoln and Stalin...oh what a difference they are...)

As for the senseless point and you mention historical development/politics. You notice that I quoted Jesus, who didn't really bring a message, he was the message. So when we define Christianity according to time periods and politics we have wavering doctrines and ideas. When we define it by what Jesus said we don't have that problem.

Also with that said you can't judge a philosophy by its abuse (some guy somewhere said this.) And the point of what I was trying to say is that people can label themselves as Christians all they want but that doesn't make them Christian. Christianity is just a word. It doesn't mean anything other than what we assign it to mean. Jesus wasn't about defining things and putting them in a box. He was about showing people how to live in the best possible way (see John 10:10).

5/8/2010 3:40:12 PM

Quote :

"As for the senseless point and you mention historical development/politics. You notice that I quoted Jesus, who didn't really bring a message, he was the message. So when we define Christianity according to time periods and politics we have wavering doctrines and ideas. When we define it by what Jesus said we don't have that problem."

I believe the point was that what Jesus said is largely a political construct as well, based on what books were included and excluded when the Bible was coalesced from many sources in the ancient world. The portrait of Jesus in the Bible today is just one of many possible that could have been.

5/8/2010 4:08:52 PM

Quote :

"I believe that Christianity is not a pick and choose faith. You can't take part of it away without taking all of it away. Jesus said to pick up our cross daily and follow him. It requires complete surrender. I think when you take bits a pieces out of the Bible, IE what God has told us, you might as well take the whole thing away. I believe everything is intertwined. To a Christian, "God is like the sun, you can't look at it, but without it you can't see anything else." - GK Chesterton. Thus I believe that God should be the reason behind everything we do. Does that mean holy huddle 24/7. No, but it does mean that the things that we do should not undermine who God wants us to be."

she was not picking and choosing, paul briefly mentioning homosexuality is the closest thing to any guidance you'll find

5/8/2010 4:34:59 PM

a

[Edited on May 8, 2010 at 5:41 PM. Reason : woops posted twice]

5/8/2010 5:33:35 PM

^^neo you make a good point. I think that the argument from most scholars takes the opposite side of that view point. Basically the books accepted into the new testament were either written by the apostles or Paul with the exception of about 5 books (Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews and Jude). Some people debate whether Hebrews was written by Paul. Luke and acts were written by Luke who was closely associated with Paul and Mark was close with Peter. Jude was accepted based on the fact that he was the brother of Jesus and was closely connected to James.

So there's your new testament. This to me doesn't seem political but I can't claim I have seen every angle on it either. (PS if I made a mistake in this paragraph please forgive me but I do believe that what I have said is correct)

To Justify Paul's writing as scripture you only need to look to 2nd Peter 3:15-16 where Peter calls Pauls writing Scripture.

I think what I am trying to explain is that you can't pick and choose what attributes of Jesus you like and don't like. I think that Jesus' teaching was mutually exclusive (hope thats the right word). In other words if you take part of it away without you undermining the purpose of it all.

I will try to explain this...Jesus had a fundamental purpose, that being to glorify God by living a perfect life and dying on a cross so that we might be able to have a relationship with God and be able to glorify God and be a part of something bigger. Now, I believe that EVERYTHING Jesus did boiled down to that very purpose. When he turned water to wine or fed the 5,000 or healed the lepers, it was all working towards that fundamental purpose. Therefore if you take something away from what he did you are in essence violating the fundamental purpose behind what he did. Thus, I believe we are to have a fundamental purpose as well that parallels (to the extent possible) the purpose Jesus had. I believe that you cannot pick and choose what it is you want to believe about Jesus because it all boils down to the fundamental purpose of why we do things. Does that make sense?

I realize that many will disagree with the beliefs (or assumptions as you may say) that I made in the above paragraph but I think a Christian (Thus this particular singer) would most likely agree with what was said above...but I could be missing something.

Deflaw my logic please!

5/8/2010 5:40:37 PM

well you ignored paul only mentioning it in passing.

but still, why would this sin be different? what is so special about it? what about jesus standing beside sinners, washing the feet of prostitutes? the church is open to everyone, we are all sinners. how can you exclude anyone from the church without picking and choosing scripture yourself?

5/8/2010 6:02:43 PM

Quote :

"Why on earth would anyone choose to be in a minority where we are constantly being persecuted, judged, threatened, harassed and in some cases even murdered?"

In order to the undermine the gender system that causes the oppression. Gloria Anzaldúa would be an example of this.

5/8/2010 7:01:36 PM

Quote :

"I think that the argument from most scholars takes the opposite side of that view point. Basically the books accepted into the new testament were either written by the apostles or Paul with the exception of about 5 books (Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews and Jude). Some people debate whether Hebrews was written by Paul. Luke and acts were written by Luke who was closely associated with Paul and Mark was close with Peter. Jude was accepted based on the fact that he was the brother of Jesus and was closely connected to James. "

Written by an apostle isn't exactly accurate either, as most of the Gospels were compositions written by several authors, often being completed several centuries after Jesus's death. The core message probably stays consistent (though if you include the Gnostic gospels, this isn't the case), but the details do not. I think this makes taking a hard line on a practice being streng verboten according to scripture difficult.

5/8/2010 8:49:17 PM

Quote :

"If you use the craziest assholes in a group as its representative then you're going to have a pretty low opinion of every group ever."

Do you really need me to cite all the bigotry in the New Testament? Even those attributed directly to Jesus? Or would that be taking it out of context? Do only fringe christians actually believe the shit in the Bible?

5/8/2010 9:06:06 PM

^Yes Please, at least one example. Like i said earlier. A lot of people say things like that but no of no examples they have just heard that statement before. I am not saying you don't know any, but there are def. people out there that toss that around as truth and cannot name one such example.

^also, can you clarify what you mean by fringe Christians. I am not sure which end of the spectrum you are touching on. thx

Quote :

"well you ignored paul only mentioning it in passing."

Quote :

"To Justify Paul's writing as scripture you only need to look to 2nd Peter 3:15-16 where Peter calls Pauls writing Scripture."

If that is what you meant by passing, I guess I need clarification. Do you think more is necessary to include it?

As for why this sin would be different. Yes, everyone is a sinner, but homosexuality is really a lifestyle. It would be accepting a sinful lifestyle. Yes many Christians struggle with various sins but many (not all) of them are actively trying to rid their lives of sin. Whereas homosexuality or even continued adultery or even compulsive lying is a lifestyle. It's not daily picking up one's cross. It is in fact the opposite of that.

And PS when I say Christians i mean people that claim to be Christian.

5/8/2010 9:51:17 PM

5/8/2010 10:10:28 PM

Quote :

"As for why this sin would be different. Yes, everyone is a sinner, but homosexuality is really a lifestyle. It would be accepting a sinful lifestyle. Yes many Christians struggle with various sins but many (not all) of them are actively trying to rid their lives of sin. Whereas homosexuality or even continued adultery or even compulsive lying is a lifestyle. It's not daily picking up one's cross. It is in fact the opposite of that."

why should any of that keep someone out of the church? how can you justify excluding any of that from the church without picing and choosing scripture.

Quote :

"If that is what you meant by passing, I guess I need clarification. Do you think more is necessary to include it?"

no, what i am saying is that paul mentions homosexuality right beside heterosexual acts he finds sinful; he is talking about promiscuity of all kinds. are you saying that your reading of the bible says that promiscuous people are worthy of death? because if you are claiming a literal, infallible reading of paul that is what you are saying.

and again, how does any of this exclude anyone from the church?

5/9/2010 5:43:06 PM

Quote :

"As for why this sin would be different. Yes, everyone is a sinner, but homosexuality is really a lifestyle. It would be accepting a sinful lifestyle. Yes many Christians struggle with various sins but many (not all) of them are actively trying to rid their lives of sin. Whereas homosexuality or even continued adultery or even compulsive lying is a lifestyle. It's not daily picking up one's cross. It is in fact the opposite of that."

Where do you get off making such an outrageously biased claim like this? This is just like saying "homosexuality is a choice," which is just not true. I have no idea if there's genetics involved or not, but I didn't choose to be gay, but I don't have any sort of "lifestyle" besides that of being an average, American male. It's just a part of who I am, not how I choose to live. If you think it's just a lifestyle, then I invite you to actually meet some gay people and really talk to them. Otherwise you're making up stuff, or being spoon-fed nonsense.

5/9/2010 5:50:30 PM

Quote :

"Jesus had a fundamental purpose, that being to glorify God by living a perfect life and dying on a cross so that we might be able to have a relationship with God and be able to glorify God and be a part of something bigger. Now, I believe that EVERYTHING Jesus did boiled down to that very purpose. "

Jesus wasn't perfect though. You're superimposing your presumption of what you want Christianity to be in order to justify the Lutz™ brand of Christianity.

5/9/2010 8:06:06 PM

I am not sure how anyone can honestly say the Bible condones homosexuality. I mean, is it not correct that God destroyed two cities in no small part due to the rampantness of homosexuality. I can't imagine any logical interpretation of the Bible that leads one to the conclusion that God all of a sudden changed his mind and welcomed the thought with open arms.

I have not read the Bible all the way through. I think it's confusing and boring and I don't really know that I believe a lot of it. But like I said, from what I have read and have been taught, and most importantly what makes logical sense, God is pretty clear on the point.... homosexuality is a no-no.

My biggest question is why in the world would anyone who is homosexual want to get involved with Christianity anyway? I mean, there are tons of other religions who's "God" has not condemned cities because of homosexuality. You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're going to get shit from Christians and non-believers alike. I think that more than anything, she is just looking to get attention and stir up controversy.

5/9/2010 8:50:28 PM

Quote :

"My biggest question is why in the world would anyone who is homosexual want to get involved with Christianity anyway? I mean, there are tons of other religions who's "God" has not condemned cities because of homosexuality. You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're going to get shit from Christians and non-believers alike. I think that more than anything, she is just looking to get attention and stir up controversy. "

You kind of answered your own question...

People are born into their religions for the most part. Religion is a powerful psychological force, and if it's ingrained from childhood, it's not easy to just jump ship. Especially since people don't really know what being a homo (or whatever their sexual orientation is) means typically until after they've been imprinted with religious ideologies.

5/9/2010 9:34:37 PM

I guess he can't understand that some gay people still wish to be saved by the Christian God. The thing is, if there are so many interpretations of scripture, who's to say that one is more correct than another?

5/9/2010 10:27:51 PM

I can understand that there are many interpretations of scripture.

What I am saying is that it is a VERY far cry to conclude that God would wipe out an entire city in anger because of a certain sin, then decide that "Oh by the way, that's OK now." That sounds to me less like an interpretation of the Bible, and more like a certain group of people who want to engage in an act which is clearly contradictory to the Bible grasping for straws.

5/9/2010 10:47:15 PM

In all fairness though, my personal feeling is that if the Christian God is capable of that, then I have no desire to worship him. A wrathful god is not a merciful god.

5/9/2010 10:50:10 PM

I totally agree with you. That's one thing that really turned me off to Christianity altogether. I mean, if God made you, why in the world would he put a vice on you like being attracted to the same sex? Even if (and I don't buy this "interpretation") homosexuality is OK now, why would any homosexual want to serve a God who used to hate homosexuals? I am not gay, but I have some vices that I know are clearly contradictory to the Bible. Why would God create someone with a flaw that he condemns?

5/9/2010 11:17:16 PM

Quote :

"This is just like saying "homosexuality is a choice," which is just not true. I have no idea if there's genetics involved or not, but I didn't choose to be gay, but I don't have any sort of "lifestyle" besides that of being an average, American male."

Simply to clarify here --

Homosexuality as a preference is not a sin any more than a predisposition for liking to think about naked ladies is a sin. Neither side of the coin chose to be that way. I didn't choose to like naked ladies; given the choice, I'd probably have gone with asexuality and I'd get a lot more work done in all that time currently spent pursuing women, failing, and then furiously masturbating.

What is a sin is acting on or entertaining those preferences. Presumably you could have a homosexual preference and not do homosexual things. But when you not only act on them but declare, in effect, that you have every intention of continuing to act on them in the future -- then you've picked a lifestyle.

I'm not getting on a high horse here -- In the words of Homer Simpson, "I've masturbated eight billion times and have no plans to stop masturbating in the future" -- just trying to get rid of what I think is a common misconception. You can't choose your preferences. You can choose your actions, presumably even those that run contrary to your preferences. You were born gay, you weren't born fucking dudes. And so on and so forth. Personally I don't think that homosexuality ranks real high on the list of things that God really gives a shit about, and I invite you all to tell me how that means I'm a hypocrite or not really Christian or just proved that the Bible is bullshit because really it is mathematically impossible for me to give less of a fuck what you think about beliefs I have that in no way affect any of you.

5/9/2010 11:59:44 PM

Quote :

"This is just like saying "homosexuality is a choice," which is just not true."

At the very least it's a choice for some people. Though neither choice nor gene do the subject justice. Sexuality is idea that undergoes constant negotiation. It varies dramatically across time and place.

5/10/2010 12:20:38 AM