I believe that's "Quoted for Truth"Originally posted by: Tabb
What does QFT stand for?
Quoted For Truth.Originally posted by: Tabb
What does QFT stand for?
Quoted For TruthOriginally posted by: Tabb
What does QFT stand for?Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I think that despite our disagreement over the roots and other aspects of homosexuality, that Vic is actually a very fair and reasonable person.Originally posted by: Tabb
?????Originally posted by: Vic
QFTOriginally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do.
Yeah. But I injected some sarcastic humor into mine. I win on content.Originally posted by: Stunt
Haha...i win!
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.
And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?
Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.
And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.
The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.
I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.
And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.
We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.
I believe the morality and the choice are related.
You're stil missing the point. The thread was started about why people were gay. Not the morality of being gay or whether they choose to act on it on or not. Its acknowledged by many christians that its ok to be gay. Its the act of ingulging in gay sex that is quesioned as being immoral. But we are not even getting that far in this discussion. this is a discussion of why they have gay feelings to begin with.
Come on man, you are putting words in people mouths with definitions that are ambiguous. Most Christians will not say "It is OK to be gay" because there is a lot of confusion on what you mean when you say someone is gay. Certainly, most of the people I talk to assume that if you call yourself gay you are engaging in, or have no problem with, homosexual sex. And Christians definately would not agree with that, tss4.
And besides, the OP purposefully and very firmly stated that homosexuality is not a choice and that he was convinced of this. I feel he is mistaken, so I posted to present my views on the subject, because I would say it is a choice. And once you talk about choice it isn't long before it becomes a moral issue. There, so now you have the thought progression.
I stated that from my personal experinces, from the people that I've talked to and what I've read. The general conclusion is that Homosexuality is NOT choice. You're confusing being homosexsual with the act of homsexsuality. The Christian Church does not condem being homosexsual, it condems that act of it. Even, though the reasons for it are not because of morality. It was just the way things where so many years ago. The act of peforming gay sex is a choice, being attracted to the same sex is not. It may be though "progression" I don't really care if we discuss the morality, but the original subjet was "why are some people gay".
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.
And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?
Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.
And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.
The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.
I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.
And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.
We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.
I believe the morality and the choice are related.
You're stil missing the point. The thread was started about why people were gay. Not the morality of being gay or whether they choose to act on it on or not. Its acknowledged by many christians that its ok to be gay. Its the act of ingulging in gay sex that is quesioned as being immoral. But we are not even getting that far in this discussion. this is a discussion of why they have gay feelings to begin with.
Come on man, you are putting words in people mouths with definitions that are ambiguous. Most Christians will not say "It is OK to be gay" because there is a lot of confusion on what you mean when you say someone is gay. Certainly, most of the people I talk to assume that if you call yourself gay you are engaging in, or have no problem with, homosexual sex. And Christians definately would not agree with that, tss4.
And besides, the OP purposefully and very firmly stated that homosexuality is not a choice and that he was convinced of this. I feel he is mistaken, so I posted to present my views on the subject, because I would say it is a choice. And once you talk about choice it isn't long before it becomes a moral issue. There, so now you have the thought progression.
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
I never said that all actions that cause harm are neccessarily immoral, because certain things cause more harm than others and that is obvious. My point is that you are basing your view of what is and isn't immoral on SOMETHING, which I'm not sure of.
Surely, you don't see the difference between an accident and purposefully engaging in something that harms you not just physically, but emotionally and psycologically? If there were no STDs I would still say that promiscous sex is immoral, because there are other serious consequences (mental, psycological, etc.) that are very obvious.
Now, whether or not you are aware that something is harming you in some way, that is a separate issue. I base my morality on God and the Bible, and I'm very open about that. I will argue that the morality talked about in the Bible is a reasonable morality, with facts that support it. But reason can only uncover what the spirit already knows to be true. I begin by believing that homosexuality is immoral because the Bible tells me it is, and then when I see all the facts that show the negative consequences of homosexual lifestyles, I am not at all surprised.
Originally posted by: Vic
Quoted For TruthOriginally posted by: Tabb
What does QFT stand for?Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I think that despite our disagreement over the roots and other aspects of homosexuality, that Vic is actually a very fair and reasonable person.Originally posted by: Tabb
?????Originally posted by: Vic
QFTOriginally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do.
3chordcharlie, thanks. I do try. Not easy amongst the irrational that is most of P&N, as I am sure you are aware.
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Thank you too.Originally posted by: Vic
3chordcharlie, thanks. I do try. Not easy amongst the irrational that is most of P&N, as I am sure you are aware.
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.
Indeed. And it is in this context that we can see the reasoning for moral laws against promiscuity and homosexuality. Not but 3 or so generations ago, even minor STD's were frequently fatal (or would result in sterility). There was no easy-cure shot for the clap like we have today. And morality is ethics on culture-wide scale. Life was very different 2,500 years ago.Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I tend to avoid the word 'moral' and focus on the word 'ethical', but that really is semantics:
If your actions impose on the freedoms of, or cause preventable harm to, another person (a specific person, or an aggregate one, like the 'public' when you litter), without their legitimate consent, then they are unethical.
It's pretty easy to see that stealing, killing, lying, and yes, knowingly exposing someone to an STD without disclosure would fall under my definition as 'unethical'.
Indeed they will.Originally posted by: Tabb
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
But lots of things were frequently fatal - swimming, skinned knees, all sorts of stuff. I agree that sex before antibiotics and birth control was considerably riskier than it is now. But at no time would I have called rape acceptable, and consensual sex has always been between two people accepting the risks of their behavious; ethically there is no problem.Originally posted by: Vic
Indeed. And it is in this context that we can see the reasoning for moral laws against promiscuity and homosexuality. Not but 3 or so generations ago, even minor STD's were frequently fatal (or would result in sterility). There was no easy-cure shot for the clap like we have today. And morality is ethics on culture-wide scale. Life was very different 2,500 years ago.Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I tend to avoid the word 'moral' and focus on the word 'ethical', but that really is semantics:
If your actions impose on the freedoms of, or cause preventable harm to, another person (a specific person, or an aggregate one, like the 'public' when you litter), without their legitimate consent, then they are unethical.
It's pretty easy to see that stealing, killing, lying, and yes, knowingly exposing someone to an STD without disclosure would fall under my definition as 'unethical'.
Last I checked we were in the United States and all men were created equal.Originally posted by: Tabb
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.
Yeah, there was a muslim guy on this forum a few months back talking about how gays should be killed becuase it was a disease. His name was Hiram or Hazim or something like that.
Originally posted by: Tabb
The VAST majority of homosexual will tell you it is NOT a choice.
Take your bible thumping bs somewhere else.
Originally posted by: mribnik1
I always have acronym finder ready to go, but for some reason I always assumed (especially due to the content of some of these threads) that QFT standed for "Quit F'ing Trolling." Made sense to me!
Originally posted by: conjur
Last I checked we were in the United States and all men were created equal.Originally posted by: Tabb
Goto the middle east, they'll still kill you for homosexsuality I beileve.Originally posted by: conjur
No, it fits perfectly.Originally posted by: Vic
You are inaccurately assuming that Christianity is the only religion that has moral rules against homosexuality. Quite the contrary, Christianity is about the only major religion that has at least partially accepted homosexuality (if not universally). So your out-of-the-blue comment really doesn't work here.Originally posted by: conjur
Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?
HA!
Name me the activist groups of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Buddhists, etc. that are clamoring for bans on same-sex marriage; calling for bans of books whose authors were gay or whose content included discussion of homosexualiy; calling for legislation preventing homosexuals from adopting children.
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: Tabb
The VAST majority of homosexual will tell you it is NOT a choice.
Take your bible thumping bs somewhere else.
Bush will also tell you that God speaks through him.
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: mribnik1
I always have acronym finder ready to go, but for some reason I always assumed (especially due to the content of some of these threads) that QFT standed for "Quit F'ing Trolling." Made sense to me!
I'm hurt...