lolz i guess you're rightstormcaller said:Kind of off-topic but, I've never understood why it is "homophobia" because doesn't that mean an irrational fear of humans?
lolz i guess you're rightstormcaller said:Kind of off-topic but, I've never understood why it is "homophobia" because doesn't that mean an irrational fear of humans?
I do believe I used the words "naturally" "conceive". Invetro-fertilization and other similar matters are an entire different barrel of monkeys and personally I have yet to decide on how exactly I feel about them.Shade Jackrabbit said:Hmm... So if a couple wanted to cement their feelings and science developed a method to make a 0% chance of inception, then it WOULD be a sin, even if they were a male and female?Seekster said:...If a married couple (meaning a male and a female and absolutely nothing else) wish to engage in sexual intercourse and use birth control or natural family planning to avoid conceiving a child then that is, in my own personal opinion, not sinful behavior because they are still engaging in an act which cements their feelings for each other and (this is the critical part) there is still some chance that a child may still be conceived (as both sperm and egg are still present in the event) naturally if God wills it...
Fair enough in most respects, but if science allegedly did make a way to prevent conception (and I use the word allegedly since I am setting this scenario within your personal beliefs), wouldn't the people involved still be sinning though, seeing as how they're attempting to prevent conception completely and believe they are doing so, just so they can engage in these baser, more carnal pleasures?Seekster said:I do believe I used the words "naturally" "conceive". Invetro-fertilization and other similar matters are an entire different barrel of monkeys and personally I have yet to decide on how exactly I feel about them.Shade Jackrabbit said:Hmm... So if a couple wanted to cement their feelings and science developed a method to make a 0% chance of inception, then it WOULD be a sin, even if they were a male and female?Seekster said:...If a married couple (meaning a male and a female and absolutely nothing else) wish to engage in sexual intercourse and use birth control or natural family planning to avoid conceiving a child then that is, in my own personal opinion, not sinful behavior because they are still engaging in an act which cements their feelings for each other and (this is the critical part) there is still some chance that a child may still be conceived (as both sperm and egg are still present in the event) naturally if God wills it...
Also if God really wants a baby to be conceived, it WILL be conceived. There is nothing mankind with all of our arrogance and science can do about it. (Do not ask me to explain myself here because it is a matter of faith not empirical evidence).
It sounds to me like it doesn't matter what you personally feel about anything. Just ask your God, right? Look it up in your book.Seekster said:I do believe I used the words "naturally" "conceive". Invetro-fertilization and other similar matters are an entire different barrel of monkeys and personally I have yet to decide on how exactly I feel about them.
"Hating on" would be inaccurate. The words I used were put off. As in- eyes-rolling, go somewhere else put off.BLOONINJA 503 said:He is hating on gay people that are obnoxius about being gay. I dont see what you saw.Booze Zombie said:That's hating obnoxious people, not gay people.Jimmyjames said:I'm not very homophobic, but I am slightly put off by really queeny guys that are obviously trying to act that way. At Comic-Con waaaayyyyy back in 2001 in the Spider-Man panel, I was sitting in front of a guy that kept LOUDY talking about what he wanted to do to Tobey Maguire. Just a little obnoxious.
Again, hate is a little too strong a word. Additionally, I know a few gay people that think the same thing about "queens" (their own word).Biek said:I also hate people obnoxious about being gay. Their another example of people cramming their beliefs down your throat out of sheer attention-whoring.
Well you could also look at it that the person would be sinning by agreeing to have the body altered in a way that would make it impossible to conceive (such as rendering the womb permanently non-functional perhaps). Granted the situation might be different if the individual has a health risk that would require them to have such an operation but that would need to be examined on an individual basis.Shade Jackrabbit said:Fair enough in most respects, but if science allegedly did make a way to prevent conception (and I use the word allegedly since I am setting this scenario within your personal beliefs), wouldn't the people involved still be sinning though, seeing as how they're attempting to prevent conception completely and believe they are doing so, just so they can engage in these baser, more carnal pleasures?Seekster said:I do believe I used the words "naturally" "conceive". Invetro-fertilization and other similar matters are an entire different barrel of monkeys and personally I have yet to decide on how exactly I feel about them.Shade Jackrabbit said:Hmm... So if a couple wanted to cement their feelings and science developed a method to make a 0% chance of inception, then it WOULD be a sin, even if they were a male and female?Seekster said:...If a married couple (meaning a male and a female and absolutely nothing else) wish to engage in sexual intercourse and use birth control or natural family planning to avoid conceiving a child then that is, in my own personal opinion, not sinful behavior because they are still engaging in an act which cements their feelings for each other and (this is the critical part) there is still some chance that a child may still be conceived (as both sperm and egg are still present in the event) naturally if God wills it...
Also if God really wants a baby to be conceived, it WILL be conceived. There is nothing mankind with all of our arrogance and science can do about it. (Do not ask me to explain myself here because it is a matter of faith not empirical evidence).
Also by that logic, couldn't a lesbian couple become pregnant if god willed it?
I suppose so but I do not believe that has ever happened which if you are a Christian (as I am) can be taken to mean that God does not will it (thus he created nature in a way that it is impossible for two women to impregnate one another on their own). If male and female are not meant to be natural partners to one another then why does gender even exist?
(I'm not trying to change your beliefs, by the way, I'm just trying to figure out your reasoning. Personally I'm traditionally agnostic but matters of religion are often interesting to me, and I think your responses could offer some helpful insight to the general community.)
These are pretty much the only homosexuals ANYONE is allowed to hate. Including other homosexuals.Jimmyjames said:I'm not very homophobic, but I am slightly put off by really queeny guys that are obviously trying to act that way. At Comic-Con waaaayyyyy back in 2001 in the Spider-Man panel, I was sitting in front of a guy that kept LOUDY talking about what he wanted to do to Tobey Maguire. Just a little obnoxious.
^This.Jabbawocky said:Why do most people fear anything that's not dangerous? Because they do not understand.
Alright, fair enough. I can't say I agree with you, but again that's really more matters of personal belief and faith. I don't really see a problem with anyone trying to cement their feelings how they choose, and personally I don't really think it's anyones business (human, deity, demi-god, or god) to interfere. That being said, I understand where you're coming from, and respect that it's part of your faith. I think I can safely say we shall agree to disagree on this point. Lovely hearing your side of the argument though.Seekster said:Well you could also look at it that the person would be sinning by agreeing to have the body altered in a way that would make it impossible to conceive (such as rendering the womb permanently non-functional perhaps). Granted the situation might be different if the individual has a health risk that would require them to have such an operation but that would need to be examined on an individual basis.Shade Jackrabbit said:-snip-
I do not consider myself a very good Christian as I really dont care if you are agnostic (I believe you are wrong but my reasons for that belief are based almost entirely on faith so it is a waste of time trying to use faith as the basis of an argument with someone who does not share your faith). I do respect your non-confrontational approach. Too often I find agnostics (such as runtheplacered) who rudely insult anyone with religious faith on this forum so its refreshing to meet someone with the maturity of an adult.
Interesting idea, but Homophobia has been going on for much longer than we've had AIDS. However I do agree that the Association with AIDS and dirty needles hasn't helped. hadn't considered that angle before. Gave me pause for thought there.randommaster said:AIDS
Now before you start lambasting me, hear me out.
The whole AIDS scare way back when highlighted the fact that a lot of homosexuals have AIDS (or at least there is a higher rate among them). This made people associate homosexuals with crazy indistructable killer virus that spreads through some unknown reason (I know they figured out how AIDS is transmitted). This gave more attention to the homosexual community as well as the thought that homosexual == AIDS, regardless of what the actuall cause was.
So you have a bunch of people that know that people who use drugs have the same disease as those who are homosexual. This creates negative association and allows people to point to homosexuallity and say that it is corrupting the children. This spawns the crazyness you see today, except that homosexuallity dosen't have the research behind it that drug use does, so there is uncertanty about what makes you homosexual and if you can "catch" it and whatnot. The popularity of "gay" and "fag" as popular insults only continue to prevent others from actually looking at homosexuallity instead of just labling it as wrong and leaving it as that.
It's too bad nobody will read this since it's stuck about a hundred posts into the thread.