90 replies to this topic

[Will]

True. But if you're argung base instinct, obviously, homosexuality does not go against it, as animals (with no ability to think on our level) practice homosexuality. It is a matter of, whether or not homosexuality was an intended desire or not. Seems like a social behavior, though, for the bonobo, rather than genetic. So it would actually be something you would use against homosexuality, if you bent it right. I don't know - I don't know the research done on bonobos. It seems easy, though, wouldn't it? To isolate young ones and see if they grow up to exhibit homosexual tendencies. If so, then it's a genetic (instinctual) behavior; if not, then it is social. I wonder if anyone has...

It is rather humourous, though, the bonobo. Think of it! Oral sex as a way of saying hello.

*wishes he were a bonobo*

[Alex]

That's doesn't seem very nice, comparing our acts to animals

Humans show animal behavior quiete often actually...
One can even consider attraction and lust , animal behavior.

[Chrissttifa]

I'm just going to say that the majority of you are idiots.

And I'll leave it at that.

Follow what you think is right, Cody.

Not what these assholes believe.

Homosexuality is a topic I'll probably get banned debating over, but there is nothing wrong with it.

For 'African-Americans' to have a hatred against any race or sexuality is the biggest hypocracy I've seen in my entire life.

Want me to learn about your history in school?

Want me to learn what 'you' had to go through?

Want me to treat you with respect for your color?

I'm sure you do. I'm not going to do it if you're going to act like a steriotypical idiot though.

And for anyone else to criticize?

Please, when the bible is proven as fact tell me.

Until then, I'll stick with Harry Potter and Mother Goose Fairy Tales.

The bible is absurd.

[amyjia]

Well unfortunately I can't say anything to that, except on what I have already said. A man was given a penis to fertilize a womans egg and create life. This was a rather good feeling, and we wanted more. So, instead we started using condoms and pills so that we could enjoy the great feeling without having the face the problems of handling another kid. Now, I agree that this is okay to have when your married, woman to man.

then in the same post you say..

One thing, it was never right to me for a man to marry a man, so that breaks my first rule of sex before marriage, and even if they do get married, which sadly is going on today, they can never had kids, and it's just not the way things were supposed to go.

You don't think this is a doublestandard? You say (married) "gay activity" is wrong because they can't produce children and sex is meant to produce children.. Yet you also say that it's ok for (married)men and women to have sex without the intention of having children? hmm... And why do you say it's sad that gay people are getting married? Maybe they want to be in loving, committed relationships also..

Also let's not forget that there are women who can't produce children (barren women) ..Since they cannot produced children, does that mean they aren't allowed to have sex?(if they are married)

I'm gonna repeat an above quote for emphasis.

Well unfortunately I can't say anything to that, except on what I have already said. A man was given a penis to fertilize a womans egg and create life. This was a rather good feeling, and we wanted more. So, instead we started using condoms and pills so that we could enjoy the great feeling without having the face the problems of handling another kid. Now, I agree that this is okay to have when your married, woman to man.

then in the same post...

I guess I can't really argue here, since in my view desires of the flesh (lust) is a sin, whereas it seems alot of people here do not believe that, and since it's not a man made law, they don't have to believe it.

Do you not think this is a blatant contradiction? You believe that the desires of the flesh (lust) is a sin, and that sex is only to produce children, yet you believe it's ok for married men and women to have sex not for procreation, but because it's "a rather good feeling and we want more"?

don't mention things I have said before anymore, unless your going to be nice about it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "going to be nice about it". If you are refering to my post before, I was only questioning what you said as I am now. I posted my questions to you in the debate section and we are now in the debate section. If you don't want people to respond to or question your views or opinions, then don't post them.. especially not in the debate section

[Darkness]

I'm just going to say that the majority of you are idiots.
And I'll leave it at that.
Follow what you think is right, Cody.
Not what these assholes believe.
Homosexuality is a topic I'll probably get banned debating over, but there is nothing wrong with it.
For 'African-Americans' to have a hatred against any race or sexuality is the biggest hypocracy I've seen in my entire life.
Want me to learn about your history in school?
Want me to learn what 'you' had to go through?
Want me to treat you with respect for your color?
I'm sure you do. I'm not going to do it if you're going to act like a steriotypical idiot though.
And for anyone else to criticize?
Please, when the bible is proven as fact tell me.
Until then, I'll stick with Harry Potter and Mother Goose Fairy Tales.
The bible is absurd.

People have opinions just like you, if they choice to have it one way they aren't idiots. Metaphorically, If you have taken a step down one path and the other has taken a step down the oposite path, neither is wrong at the time.
Now, further, I believe homosexuality isn't so much a bad thing, I just would never consider it. That being said, people can make choice, let them do it. It's their life after all, it doesn't affect you as much as you think it does. At least not yet in any way.
By the looks of AliasXNeo's post, he's got a strong liking for the bible?

Edited by Darkness, 21 April 2006 - 09:05 PM.

[pyke]

I'm just going to say that the majority of you are idiots.

And I'll leave it at that.

Follow what you think is right, Cody.

Not what these assholes believe.

Homosexuality is a topic I'll probably get banned debating over, but there is nothing wrong with it.

For 'African-Americans' to have a hatred against any race or sexuality is the biggest hypocracy I've seen in my entire life.

Want me to learn about your history in school?

Want me to learn what 'you' had to go through?

Want me to treat you with respect for your color?

I'm sure you do. I'm not going to do it if you're going to act like a steriotypical idiot though.

And for anyone else to criticize?

Please, when the bible is proven as fact tell me.

Until then, I'll stick with Harry Potter and Mother Goose Fairy Tales.

The bible is absurd.

Cody just posted it as a topic of discussion I don't believe he is being proposed the idea himself xD. The points you bring up have nothing to do with religion or sex besides your claim that the bible is absurd . One thing about the bible has to be recognized. Over the centuries that have past, changes were almost certainly made in some shape or form. Whether or not you look at the stories as historical events or merely lessons enclosed in a story makes no difference. What is more important is that you learn the lesson that is being taught in it.

Everyone make sure you read above this, its important in maintaining civilized discussion. Its all right for you folks to have different opinons, but be pleasant about it xD

[Darkness]

Okay, let's see here. Your sort of missing the whole point here. Do you know what desires of the flesh and lust is? It's when you constantly want women. You might be always saying "Ah she got ass" or "dam those some big tits", common slang. That would be desires of the flesh (lust). So, when a married couple has sex, it's not like that is it? You don't act with lust towards your wife, it's a different kind of love. Usually most people who marry because of lust have very bad relationships. That other kind of love needs to be there. And I think men having sex together is wrong in the first place. Think of it like this. I don't think anyone should have sex before being married, and I don't think men should be able to get married, because it's not right. So, that outrules everything about men being together.

Again, your missing the point. I said it's okay for married couples to have sex, make sure you read the paragraph above me. It's not the same, a barren women can still have sex yes, but she can't go out and do it with 3-4 guys.

And when like I said, marriages founded on "I want sex and nothing but sex" never last. I don't think it's right to have a marriage based on nothing but sex, because you will get nowhere. If you truly don't love your spouse, your liable to run into alot of problems in the future. So, no, it's not a "we want more thing".

Did I clear things up for you? By the way, I ment nice because that last sentence you just said right there was completely and utterly wrong. No offense, but I have realized (thanks to luffly Lindsay) that sure you can share your opinions in hear, but it does not give you the right to be cocky about it and act as if the other person is attacking you. It's a place to share opinions in a nice civilized manner, and not for flaming and fighting. I already made a deal that I will calm down alot more, but in order for this transition to happen more smoothly, I need other people to try and remove their sometimes cockiness as well.

There is nothing wrong with stating if you think a woman is good looking or whatever. How you do it varies. What I don't understand is this: Sex is the same damn thing, no matter what. Who you do it with doesn't change it. If you think that it, being unchanged, is okay in one position and not in another, it's a tough thing to believe. I don't really care, it's whatever you want to believe, regardless, I believe that casual sex is fine.
You also fail to mention homosexual sex with women aswell, I assume you believe the same? People can base their relationship on whatever it may be from love to sex to homosexuality, it's their decision and whether it lasts or not is their doing. Morally speaking, you, nor anyone else, is in any position to say what's right or wrong, myself included.

Edit: By position and "same thing" I do not mean it in a sexual way

Edited by Darkness, 21 April 2006 - 09:39 PM.

[Darkness]

If that last statement was true, this debate would not exist. So obviously something is up. Yes, I think the same thing with women. No offense at all, but Women seem to be the more "norm" of relationships, this is mostly due to pornography. I won't really go into it, but a man's dream is to get his hands on a good tape of "lesbian porn". Sadly, alot of this exists, and not only is it worse then a woman to woman marriages, these people go around messing with various women they may not even know. Anyways, we all have a right to say what we want. It's part of life. If we all kept to ourselves there would be no point of debating. Now I'm not saying it's alright to go out and randomly judge people, but it is okay to share your views, even if it's going against the 50,000 others out there because you never know, on speech could reduce the 50,000 to 25,000 and increase your odds alot more.

You think it's due to pornography? Perhaps, it depends o nthe dominant in the realtionship, or, for the sake of those not in one, those in the "party." Perhaps getting your hands on a "good tape of lesbian porn" is your dream, but it's not my dream. You didn't quite clarify, do you believe the same with women and male homosexuality? But then you said --something-- is worse than "a woman to woman marriages." If anyone can clarify please

Edit: Also, may I ask, are you homophobic?

Edited by Darkness, 21 April 2006 - 09:49 PM.

[Darkness]

I'm sorry, you completely lost me there. Anyways, yes I do think it's do to alot of pornography. When I was like 13, I was like hardcore into that stuff (yesh I was a bad little kid), but I can't even keep count of the millions of lesbian movies I found. It was so common to go on a forum and see "lesbian this, lesbian that". Don't take that as me saying it's where all relationships form, but even you yourself cannot deny that alot of lesbians are what they are from porn.

And I said that a woman going around having sex with MANY women they probably don't even know is worse then a "woman to woman" marriage. Yes, woman to woman marriages are not right to me either, but I consider the porn to be of a higher "wrong". Anyways, both are wrong, and woman and men were supposed to have eachother. That's what I feel, and the formation of our body clearly backsup the fact that the main reason for our penis and vagina to exist is to give new life.

Your opinion makes sense, but I don't understand exactly why you think it's so wrong. I'm not refering to the pornorgraphy, that's another story, but the marraige and relationship. If it's only because they can't produce childern then that's not exactly, I'll say, "backed up." I read through the topic, you said something things about the Bible and God, but you claimed it wasn't a religous matter, so where are you coming from?

I'd say the majority of "lesbians" in lesbian movies are not real lesbians, but I'm sure some are. In life though, they are people that find the same sex attractive. Personally, offering no offense to anyone, though I don't see anything wrong with it, I can not deny the feeling that a lot of lesbian relations are backed by lust. I cannot say that's true, however, because I don't know if it's a hollow or real love. So I'm going to state, once again so it's apparent, that I find nothing wrong with it but I don't believe it's right for me. I can understand, though, a lot of what people are saying about likes and dislikes. I'm not stupid.

[Darkness]

Firstly Casilla, I know what homophobia is, I was just curious if he was is all

Where I am coming from is that it's not natural for a man to hump a man, or vica versa with a woman. I see it natural for a woman and a man to engage in it, giving that they are married, but in my opinion it was never ment to be. I have alot more reasoning behind my belief, but since it's religious, I can't bring it into the topic.

True, it may not be natural, but why must they be married? Or is that positioned in the area of religious reasoning?

Edit:

It's a popular misconception that women become lesbians after having a bad relationship with men, and while that is true in some cases, it isn't true for the majority of lesbians. It's just stereotypical.

I appologize, the strereotype was purely unintentional. I stated I had a lack of knowledge and therefore I did not know. Also, according to you, it's a popular misconception, I can't be the only one to be a fault.

Edited by Darkness, 21 April 2006 - 10:11 PM.

[Darkness]

It's not the sort of thing people admit to, though, and that question is normally asked as an insult, considering that it IS an insult by today's standards. =P

I wasn't aiming to insult him. Don't get me wrong, I ask people I know and I have people who say yes. Overal, I don't see it to be very insulting. It was only curiousity.

Edit:

I don't believe in premarital sex. It is in my religion, but it's not because of my religion I believe it. I just personally feel it's wrong.

I won't ask you why unless you want to say, but I was curious about that as well

Edited by Darkness, 21 April 2006 - 10:14 PM.

[amyjia]

lol.. ok

Okay, let's see here. Your sort of missing the whole point here. Do you know what desires of the flesh and lust is? It's when you constantly want women. You might be always saying "Ah she got ass" or "dam those some big tits", common slang. That would be desires of the flesh (lust). So, when a married couple has sex, it's not like that is it? You don't act with lust towards your wife, it's a different kind of love. Usually most people who marry because of lust have very bad relationships.

You weren't refering to desires of the flesh and lust in this way earlier .. You were refering to it as having sex without procreation in mind examples..

Are you serious? God says only like hundreds of times in the Bible that not to "lust" for one another, or take to "desires of the flesh". It's preety obvious, and people are not made to like the same sex, they become that way. I don't treat them as freaks either, you guys have some serious issues with anger, you get mad and start jumping to conclusions that never happened.

You can conclude yourself what happens when a man "does it" with a woman in a natural form, they become pregnant. That's basically the only "good" thing that comes out of sex. You can't have a child if you "do it" with the same sex, and only leaves personal lust and desire, and that's never good.

See.. From what you said, any sex outside of procreational sex is not good. which brought me to the point I was making about barren women. Since you were saying only procreaional sex is good and barren women cannot procreate, then it would be bad wrong for barren women (who are married) to have sex. (According to what you said). so when you said this..

Again, your missing the point. I said it's okay for married couples to have sex, make sure you read the paragraph above me. It's not the same, a barren women can still have sex yes, but she can't go out and do it with 3-4 guys.

And when like I said, marriages founded on "I want sex and nothing but sex" never last. I don't think it's right to have a marriage based on nothing but sex, because you will get nowhere. If you truly don't love your spouse, your liable to run into alot of problems in the future. So, no, it's not a "we want more thing".

I think your missing the point <--see using your own words..lol:P (I'm Talking about procreational sex verse non procreational sex).

Did I clear things up for you? By the way, I ment nice because that last sentence you just said right there was completely and utterly wrong. No offense, but I have realized (thanks to luffly Lindsay) that sure you can share your opinions in hear,

Ok..my last sentence? here it is.

If you don't want people to respond to or question your views or opinions, then don't post them.. especially not in the debate section

what is so "completely and utterly wrong" about that? You said you didn't want anyone mentioning anything you said in your post and I just said if you don't want anyone to respond to or question your views then don't post it, especially in a section that is all about giving feedback (debate section). I did not say you shouldn't share what you think

but it does not give you the right to be cocky about it and act as if the other person is attacking you. It's a place to share opinions in a nice civilized manner, and not for flaming and fighting. I already made a deal that I will calm down alot more, but in order for this transition to happen more smoothly, I need other people to try and remove their sometimes cockiness as well.

I believe I have been very civilized. All I have done is questioned what you have said. I am using evidence to backup my questioning. I am not flaming you,I am not fighting you, and I am not being cocky. This is the debating section.. I am debating

oh oh! one more thing..

And I think men having sex together is wrong in the first place. Think of it like this. I don't think anyone should have sex before being married, and I don't think men should be able to get married, because it's not right. So, that outrules everything about men being together.

Finally! you say you don't think it is right "in the first place" So it isn't really about gay men not being to procreate?If not, then what is it really about? Why do you think gay people being together, getting married and having sex is wrong?

Edited by amyjia, 21 April 2006 - 10:28 PM.

[Darkness]

From what you said, any sex outside of procreational sex is not good. which brought me to the point I was making about barren women. Since you were saying only procreaional sex is good and barren women cannot procreate, then it would be bad wrong for barren women (who are married) to have sex. (According to what you said).

I bleieve he stated that they can have sex, but not with 3-4 guys. I'm assuming he meant that he thinks it is okay as long as they are, together, I'm guessing married.

[amyjia]

I bleieve he stated that they can have sex, but not with 3-4 guys. I'm assuming he meant that he thinks it is okay as long as they are, together, I'm guessing married.

I know what he meant.. that wasn't the point... I was questioning him about saying gay people having sex was wrong because they cannot procreate.. I then brought up the case of the barren women. She cannot procreate. I was just questioning if the same rule applied to her.

[amyjia]

Amyjia, he isn't saying sex outside procreation is bad,

I never directly said that sex outside of procreation was bad.

Yes he did Casilla and yes you did Alias. I have quoted you saying it.. I will do it again now ..

You can conclude yourself what happens when a man "does it" with a woman in a natural form, they become pregnant. That's basically the only "good" thing that comes out of sex. You can't have a child if you "do it" with the same sex, and only leaves personal lust and desire, and that's never good.

see. He said the only good thing that comes from sex is having kids.. He then says since you can't have kids from (married)same gender sex, then it's not good because sex without procreation leaves only personal lust and desire. HE SAID THAT. It's only after I began asking him if he felt this way about ALL nonprocreational sex or just gay sex that he changed his tune That's why I was using terms like Double standard and contradiction..

Edited by amyjia, 21 April 2006 - 10:55 PM.

[Cam]

I wouldnt do it

[amyjia]

you say

Well as I said, I never directly said that sex that does not procreate was bad.

but then you say..

And yes, sex without procreation only lives lust, you can't deny that, and lust is usually never a good thing.

and

You can conclude yourself what happens when a man "does it" with a woman in a natural form, they become pregnant. That's basically the only "good" thing that comes out of sex. You can't have a child if you "do it" with the same sex, and only leaves personal lust and desire, and that's never good.

Those are contrary ideas. Your own words as evidence. You say sex not for procreation is ok when it's done by "married man and woman" but not ok when done by "gay people".. that's a double standard.

I'm sorry your missing my point, but as everyone has already pointed out, I never contradicted myself.

Like I've said before, I'm addressing your original point which was being gay was wrong because they cannot procreate. You only spilt off into all those other "points" after I started questioning you

Edited by amyjia, 21 April 2006 - 11:18 PM.