What's your opinion on gay people?

Yes, comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers is a little extreme. In any case, homosexuality is something you can't help no matter how hard you try, raping and killing someone is your choice and completely left up to free will. It's popular belief that God doesn't interfere with your choices, but the things you are born with you can't help. I'd like to believe that if God didn't want people to be gay, he wouldn't make them gay.

However, who the hell knows what God wants. My own belief is that there IS a God, but my belief ends there. I don't follow a religion. And in any case, I think religious debates are foolish and a waste of time. Just live your life by doing what makes you happy without hurting others and you and God should get along just fine.

Hopefully I've expressed my opinion the way I wanted to, it was difficult for me to put it into words. And this is hopefully the last post I'll be making in this topic involving religion, it gets tiresome. Religion really has no place in an intelligent conversation involving homosexuals as the most that side of the argument has to offer is, "God says it's a no-no."

I admire your effort to express your beliefs, and I will respect you for that.

As for the example, I wasn't comparing homosexuality to murdering murdering rapist pedophiles. Just expressing the logic using such an extreme to make a point. I agree with what you say concerning choices as compared to things you are born with.
However, on that note, I'm sorry to ask you to make another post, but - What makes you think people are born gay?

I'm not trying to be condescending (or whatever the word is) with the question, I'm just curious. In my opinion, to be born gay means you have always had a sexual affinity for the same sex since an infant. Not that you tried dating girls (or in a girls cause, guys) and all of the sudden realized that you are a homosexual.

Once again, I'd like to say that I don't have a problem with homosexuals as people (once again, no hitting on me plz, ty lol *bad experiences*), I just don't agree with the choice. (Yes, I believe it's a choice, which is why I asked your take)

And I'm not comparing homosexuality to religion, merely the conviction, but I actually have to give props to homosexuals and those who follow Islam. Not because I agree with either, but because homosexuals will stick to their guns, and Islams (?) (the extreme ones) will actually die for their religion. I chose to use Islam as an example because of the conviction to give your life for your cause. That's rare nowadays for most religions.

personally I don't buy into religion, and it offends me when people try to use a religion I dont' follow in an attemt to tell me that I am doing something wrong and will be going to hell.  People use religion to abuse people for self-gratification, regardless of if the person is of the same belief or not.  So I'm not going to get into the religious aspect of this topic.

I am bi, and never had a problem with gay people at all.
The way I've always seen it is pretty simple (even when I didn't realize that I was attracted to men).

I don't care what people do in their bedroom, straight or otherwise.  I personally dislike watching anyone make out in public, straight or gay couple.  Handholding, hugging, a kiss or something is fine, but watching people eat each others faces pushes it.

That being said, as far as homosexuality being 'unnatural', I've actually looked into this to find some interesting research, as well as a perfectly natural cause.

When a child is developing they are in a pseudo-hermaphrodite form, closer to that of a female than a male.  When they jump the fence and flip to a side, it's due to an influx of hormones into the developing child.  Now, there has been research to suggest that in gay men or gay women, that even though they 'picked' a gender, there was an influx of the opposite hormone that affected the mind, causing varying degrees of homosexuality.

Not only that, but there are examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom as well, showing that it's not something exclusive to humans, and that it's not simply a conscious choice, as animals aren't 'sentient' and most don't have sex for pleasure.

It's only a theory, and I think it's still being looked into, but those bits of evidence seem pretty solid to the arguement that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

Homosexuality is not a choice, nobody chooses to be gay. There's plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't volunteer to be gay but the blantantly obvious one is the horrible discrimination, it would be much easier to be straight and considered 'normal.' I'm bi and I never decided I WANTED to be gay, I decided that I WAS and there was nothing I could do about it. I've accepted it now, but when I first started realizing I was paying more attention to guys than I should, I TRIED to make it go away. I CHOSE to be straight but it DIDN'T WORK. My body apparently had other plans for me. So no, I never chose to be gay. Did you ever choose to be straight?

And namkcor expressed how I think better than I ever could.

Yes and no.

I've always been sexually attracted to girls. (I started checking them out in the 4th? grade *I was in the 4th grade too -_- *)
I've never been sexually attracted to boys, but I have been emotionally attracted to them.

Like one of my friends, I believe that everybody is attracted to someone of their own sex at one point, it's simply how far you allow that attraction to go. I never allowed my attraction to go into a sexual attraction.

I thank you for your input on the matter.

Homosexuality is not a choice, nobody chooses to be gay. There's plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't volunteer to be gay but the blantantly obvious one is the horrible discrimination, it would be much easier to be straight and considered 'normal.'

That's not a particularly strong argument, as people choose a lot of things that lead to horrible discrimination, such as a religion. And in fact, in general, it is easier to be non-religious then it is to be religious. This doesn't really need a "for instance" as it's pretty obvious, but I figure I'll point out Muslims in the United States anyway. Thus, saying that homosexuality is not a choice because it makes life harder is a flawed statement, as it is a fact that people willfully choose lifestyles that lead to discrimination or difficulty. Now, I don't believe homosexuality is a choice either, but I felt I should point out that that argument has a critical flaw.

Also, I don't want to sound negative, but this:

Code: [Select]

Ah, but it is my belief that if God truly didn't want homosexuality then he would have made sexual attraction between men nonexistant. Also I'd like to think that God wants us to do what makes us happy.

is also quite flawed, as it is contrary to most religious belief concerning free will. Using that same logic, you could also say that if God didn't want pedophilia, he wouldn't have made people attracted to children and that if he didn't want necrophilia, he wouldn't have made people attracted to corpses. Different things make different people happy. Some people are made happy by torturing people or killing them. If the God that you propose wants an individual to do whatever makes him happy, then that God does justify murder and torture so long as it is what makes the individual happy, and so it can't really be a good God to advocate. Kind of an asshole God actually.

Anyway, I've pretty much already said what I had to say in my earlier post - I just felt it would be a good idea to point out to you that your arguments are rather poor, and you'd be better served to develop them a little further.

Wow ok I had been hoping I wouldn't have to talk about religion or God AGAIN but yes OK once again here we go.

If the God that you propose wants an individual to do whatever makes him happy, then that God does justify murder and torture so long as it is what makes the individual happy, and so it can't really be a good God to advocate.

I said this in a different post:

live your life by doing what makes you happy without hurting others

I guess you missed it, which is understandable since I didn't SPECIFICALLY SAY that that's what I think God wants: Make yourself happy without hurting other people. That's the kind of God I advocate. However, if I'm understanding you correctly, I'm disappointed that you're throwing my religious belief into question. Even if I thought that God wanted something totally outrageous like GLOBAL GENOCIDE I still wouldn't want someone to be questioning it and saying "YOU'RE GOD'S AN ASSHOLE", especially when it's a much more tame and understandable thing of "Make yourself happy." It's also disappointing that you took me to the extreme when I said "God wants you to be happy" because you immediately brought up, "Well raping kids make some people happy so YOUR GOD MUST SUPPORT IT." OK!

And I can't address the other God issue without addressing the homosexuality issue first(which is THE POINT OF THIS TOPIC). So:

That's not a particularly strong argument, as people choose a lot of things that lead to horrible discrimination, such as a religion. And in fact, in general, it is easier to be non-religious then it is to be religious. This doesn't really need a "for instance" as it's pretty obvious, but I figure I'll point out Muslims in the United States anyway. Thus, saying that homosexuality is not a choice because it makes life harder is a flawed statement, as it is a fact that people willfully choose lifestyles that lead to discrimination or difficulty. Now, I don't believe homosexuality is a choice either, but I felt I should point out that that argument has a critical flaw.

I'm glad you're not questioning that homosexuality is not a choice, because from my own personal opinion it's NOT one and trust me I tried my hardest to get rid of any traces of gayness in me. But I guess your whole paragraph really is pointless arguing since you agree with me in the end anyway. One thing that I'm confused about though is this quote:

saying that homosexuality is not a choice because it makes life harder is a flawed statement

Whoa that is not what I meant AT ALL. I have no idea WHAT forces homosexuality onto people so let me clear up my statement. THIS is what I should have put:

Homosexuality is not a choice, nobody chooses to be gay. BESIDES, there's plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't volunteer to be gay but the blantantly obvious one is the horrible discrimination

Note the bold. I guess I wasn't clear enough when I said this, and maybe you were not clear when you responded to it because I could be taking it the wrong way, but in no way did I mean that it's not a choice because it makes LIFE HARDER. It's not a choice PERIOD, whether or not you will face discrimination because of it. When I said "it makes life harder" I meant it in the following way:

Homosexuality is not something you can help. However, if it WAS(and it's not), people would not all too willingly choose to be gay, because IN THIS SCENARIO(and I feel odd describing a situation that I truly believe does not happen), but IN THIS SCENARIO, let's say that a boy has two options that are EQUALLY appealing to him: Girls and boys. He would be just fine with either one and once he decided he wouldn't miss the other choice. If he picked girls, it would be completely normal and noone would question his choice, and he would be just as benefited as if he chose boys. If he chose BOYS, then he would face awful discrimination and be hated for NO REASON by a LOT of hateful people, and it would benefit him as much as if he chose girls. It's like saying you have two roads to go down - both lead to the same place. One road is clear and sunny, the other is paved with hot coals and lightning bolts. OF COURSE you would go down the road that is clear and sunny. THAT SAID, this whole "scenario" would not ever happen.

I am not attempting to bring religion back into the picture when I say this but -GOD- I hope I explained this good enough. I agree, I could have been more clear in my original post, but I didn't feel like writing an essay and I honestly felt that I had expressed myself properly but APPARENTLY NOT.

Now, unfortunately, back to momentarily talking about religion.

as it is contrary to most religious belief concerning free will.

THIS confuses me. After all that's been said and done, you and I both apparently agree that homosexuality is not a choice. Free will is not involved in that "choice" AT ALL. Why did you bring free will up? I'm extremely confused, maybe I'm reading it wrong. Clarify.

I just felt it would be a good idea to point out to you that your arguments are rather poor, and you'd be better served to develop them a little further.

I don't usually write page long essays to develop my points, I state what I think and if people have questions or arguments involving it then I clarify and express further my beliefs on a subject. Regardless, what I do NOT NEED or APPRECIATE is when someone has a "good idea" and decides to tell me that I need to develop my points better, as if they're my mentor of some sort. If you see a flaw in something I say, then you tell me what that flaw is and I'll address it, and we can have a discussion like normal people after that, but do NOT come to me and say something like "you'd be better served to develop your arguments a little further as they are a little lame." If we had been talking for post after post after post, and I had failed to come up with even one good point, I would somewhat understand, but not after you quote me ONCE and then make assumptions. I've never even talked to you, I have NO idea who you even are.

And I am TIRED of talking about God. I told modern algebra 2 to clarify on a subject involving God and that's the extent of how much I will talk about it. If that discussion stems into another discussion, I GUESS I'll keep throwing my input in, but this whole God discussion is getting entirely too annoying. The following will be my answer to ANY God-related question:

God wants you to be happy without making others unhappy.

Wow. Long post. *yes, I read it all*

First of all, we weren't brining God into the equation. We were talking about your faulty logic. And, if I may be blunt, it has so many holes in it that Swiss cheese would be ashamed.

There's an English rule (can't remember the name) that says that if you start with a pattern, you must continue with that pattern. (eg. noun > verb, noun > verb) (eg. NOT noun > verb, verb > noun > adjective)

So, when we reply to this:

Ah, but it is my belief that if God truly didn't want homosexuality then he would have made sexual attraction between men nonexistant. Also I'd like to think that God wants us to do what makes us happy.

We can't say

If parents didn't like their children screaming they wouldn't have children.

See? It doesn't make sense.

The pattern you set is like this

If Statement A then Statement B

But to break it down even further, it would be like this

If God Statement A then God Statement B

Even more so like this

If God didn't like A then God would have gotten rid of B

So you say

If God didn't like homosexuality then God would have gotten rid of same sex attraction.

Therefore, in order to adequately show the holes in your logic, we have to use extremes to paint large green spots on the holes of this swiss cheese that you have made. (If that makes any sense)

So we say

If God didn't like pedophiles then God would have gotten rid of pedo attractions

Do you understand? We're not bringing God into this, you are.

Yes, it was a long post but I was afraid that if I didn't make it long enough I wouldn't have covered what I wanted to cover. But thanks for pointing that out I suppose. Now let me point out myself that swiss cheese does not just have ONE hole, because you only pointed ONE thing out.

This topic has been derailed, as early as page two. The discussion now apparently is about WHAT GOD WANTS. It's supposed to be about HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT GAY PEOPLE wtf lol I'm disappointed.

Anyway, my answer to all of that, as I have already said, is "God wants you to do what makes you happy without hurting others." That's what I truly and honestly believe. The difference between raping someone and loving another man is obvious using this logic.

But you're using a statement I made earlier, which is this:

it is my belief that if God truly didn't want homosexuality then he would have made sexual attraction between men nonexistant

Let me state now that I know NOTHING about the mindframe of a pedophile, I don't know whether or not they're born liking little children or something triggers it as they're growing up, but I BELIEVE that it's all choice. Easy sex for old men by luring unknowing children into doing things they have no idea about. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. I honestly believe that it's a total and complete CHOICE. That said, I have little to no experience in being a pedophile - I've never been one. And I have no idea how they think. If they ARE born liking little kids, then wtf. but I don't think that's the case.

And let me clear it up, when I said that, I was speaking of my own personal experiences, in which case I was born gay and I didn't have a choice. If God truly didn't want a gay kid running around, he would've made me straight.

So to wrap it up, pedophiles and killers both do what they do as a complete CHOICE. You're not born wanting to kill people, you're not born wanting to have sex with little kids. You're BORN being gay, and I would know. Modern algebra 2 actually helps me out in this particular discussion, because killing and raping kids is a choice, while being born gay is not a choice. And as he said, "it is contrary to most religious belief concerning free will." And if that's not what he means, let me clarify what I mean by saying: God will not interfere with your free will, but what you're born with is NOT free will and surely he has some say in it.

If pedophiles are pedophiles since birth, then wtf. That's news to me. But I doubt that. Though if it's the case, then it's still wrong to compare pedophiles to homosexuals.

As for just normal rapists, everyone is attracted to the prospect of having sex, everyone wants to have sex. It's up to US and to our BETTER JUDGEMENT(aka it's our choice) whether or not to take the violent approach and to FORCE sex onto someone, which is entirely an awful thing to do.

All that aside, WHO THE HELL KNOWS why God did things the way he did. I'm certainly no expert and I'm honestly just making assumptions, much like everyone else. And to be honest, WHO CARES.

Also.

Do you understand? We're not bringing God into this, you are.

wtf. That made little to no sense, how am I doing that. Clarify, because it seems like a completely random thing to say.

And I was majorly confused around the point of "A=B, GodA=GodB" because it made no sense whatsoever, but you somewhat cleared up your opinion by the end of the post. I was also very surprised about the "we" part of the post but then I realized that you stated a somewhat similar opinion earlier, so yes.

I would complain for like the fifth time that I'm tired of these religious discussions, but I won't bother, it apparently falls on deaf ears. Although my recent posts make me sound extremely religious, and I am NOT, at all. I barely even think about God, I usually look at things in a more "realistic" way, if that's the right word.

Being sexually attracted to children is not a choice. Neither is being sexually attracted to animals, corpses, cars, bikes, or any other object or person. And if you feel that people can choose what they are sexually attracted to, then you have no argument against someone who says homosexuality is a choice. Obviously, acting on that orientation is a choice. It is a choice to have homosexual sex, just as it is a choice to have heterosexual sex, regardless of orientation. Someone might not be able to help feeling that way towards whatever, but their decision to act on it is in fact a choice - nobody is arguing that a child rapist had no choice and had to rape a child - he did something awful - but the fact that he was attracted to that child is no more his choice than is your choice to be attracted to men. That is all that is being said. And I should also clarify that it is not a comparison between child rape, and homosexual sex. It is obvious that child abuse is a terrible thing and that homosexual sex is, in my opinion, not.

As for your claim that it is not valid to compare pedophilia to homosexuality ... it is, just as it is valid to compare pedophilia to heterosexuality. They are all sexual orientations that are not chosen. The actions that correspond to those orientations are obviously different, but I wasn't comparing the actions, just the orientations. Anyway, I don't think that anybody in this conversation, Christian or otherwise, believes that homosexual attraction is a sin. Maybe I'm wrong. But most Christians that I know believe that it is the action - homosexual sex - that is the sin. So I did make one assumption about your statement that if God thought homosexuality was sinful, he would not have made homosexuals. My assumption was that you were saying that if God thought homosexual sex was sinful, he would not have made homosexuals. My disagreement with this was that the logic you use here applies equally well to: "if God thought necrophiliac sex was sinful, he would not have made necrophiliacs", or if you think that necrophilia is OK, then "if God thought pedophiliac sex was wrong, he would not have made people who were sexually attracted to children". The use of "extreme" examples like pedophilia is simply to use a sexual action that pretty much anybody would agree is wrong. By doing so, it points out the flaw in your logic because the logic used is the same, but the conclusion is clearly wrong. By showing that the logic you used leads to a false conclusion in this other situation, it demonstrates that the logic itself is flawed, and thus that your argument is not sufficient to support the statement. It is not saying that homosexual sex and child abuse are equally wrong in any way whatsoever - all it is saying is that the logic must be wrong because it can be used to obtain a false conclusion. Don't try to make more of it than what it is.

I apologize if you were not referring to sex, it was an assumption I made with the prior belief that most Christians do not believe homosexual attraction is sinful, and so I interpreted your statement the way I did and I should have clarified my assumptions prior to stating my disagreement.

And just so we're clear. Yes, I am bringing God into my post. No, I am not doing anything wrong. I am responding to a post you made that had faulty reasoning in it, and I am pointing out the flaws in that argument. You can't expect to make a statement and then say "nobody can respond to this post because I don't want you to". Anything you post in a debate topic can be addressed by another poster, unless it is off-topic. In this case, it is not off-topic. You're asking what people think about homosexuality when half of the world is religious and have religion-based opinions on homosexuality. God is not off-topic because the belief in religion influences what people think about homosexuality, and their thoughts are not made illegitimate simply because you don't want to deal with them. If you really didn't want to talk about God, then you shouldn't have made a statement which a lot of religious people and/or logicians would find fault with.

As to your other objection:

I'm glad you're not questioning that homosexuality is not a choice, because from my own personal opinion it's NOT one and trust me I tried my hardest to get rid of any traces of gayness in me. But I guess your whole paragraph really is pointless arguing since you agree with me in the end anyway. One thing that I'm confused about though is this quote:

I am glad that you cleared your statement up a little bit, by saying that this:

Homosexuality is not a choice, nobody chooses to be gay. BESIDES, there's plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't volunteer to be gay but the blantantly obvious one is the horrible discrimination

I am glad that you made it an aside. And I agree again with that statement that homosexuality is not a choice. But again, what are you trying to do with the second part at all if it is an aside? I will tell you what anybody would interpret that you are trying to do when they read that: they will think, as I thought, that you are making a claim that nobody would choose to be gay because it leads to discrimination. And all I pointed out was that it is a fact that people make choices that lead to discrimination. And so your point is lost because you tried to justify your statement with reasoning that is false. It would be stronger to simply say that "Homosexuality is not a choice. I know because I did not choose to be bisexual", and leave out your other reasoning altogether, as all it does is present a flaw and your own testimony and that of hundreds of thousands of others is a way stronger argument.

 And yes, I agree with you in saying that homosexuality is not a choice. That did not negate my post, as I was arguing against your logic and not your conclusion. If, for instance, I was to claim that the Earth is round because otherwise, it would not be able to fill the giant teapot that surrounds the earth, then you could legitimately disagree with my reasoning without having to contest my conclusion that the earth is round. That example was ludicrous, but it is late and I could not think of anything else.

If people actually ARE sexually attracted to cars, infants, and bikes, and not just out for easy sex, then I'm all for it. I'm not supporting child rape, but rather a feeling you can't help or get rid of. You can have sex with bikes and cars all you want, kinda weird but if it's how you feel then GO FOR IT. My overall point really had NOTHING to do with that, although I did mention that I knew nothing about pedophiles. Because I don't. I honestly don't believe that they're truly sexually attracted, I think they're out for sex. I could be 150% WRONG, like I mentioned, and since you're so adamant about it being an actual sexual orientation, then I'll go ahead and treat it as such for the time being, and say that I could be totally and irreversibly wrong about it not being a sexual orientation.

I don't think that anybody in this conversation, Christian or otherwise, believes that homosexual attraction is a sin.

It's usually the complete opposite with EVERY single person I know. ANYTHING homosexually related is a sin, attraction or otherwise. When I think of people hating on gays, I think of them not hating on the sex, although that is DEFINITELY a big part of it, but hating on the person for feeling the way they do, for hating something that person can't help.

I apologize if you were not referring to sex

Whoa, in no way have I been talking about homosexual SEX, I was saying that if God didn't want me to be gay, as in HAVE THESE 'UNNATURAL' FEELINGS, then he wouldn't have MADE me have these 'unnatural' feelings. I have NOT been talking about two separate things, sex and attraction, I'm just talking about attraction.

Maybe that's why I was totally and utterly confused when killing and raping came into question, because I was talking about an ATTRACTION. I was comparing said homosexual attraction and the act of pedophiliac sex for most of this time, which was what I thought you were talking about, and I had no idea at all what you were supposed to be getting at.

belief that most Christians do not believe homosexual attraction is sinful,

And again, maybe it's just because I live in the worst area of the BIBLE BELT, but I have never heard of someone not believing homosexual attraction is sinful.

If you really didn't want to talk about God, then you shouldn't have made a statement which a lot of religious people and/or logicians would find fault with.

Someone brought up a point about God, and I responded with my own opinion about it. I thought it was COMPLETELY harmless, but apparently not. I also didn't expect it to be blown out of proportions, when I assumed that it would be just be considered my own belief and brushed aside. Unfortunately, pedophiles and rapists entered the conversation, and this religious discussion started, and I'm majorly disappointed about that. I'm more of an atheist than anything else, although I do believe in a God. Religious conversations make me uncomfortable as my own views differ greatly from most of everyone I know, and if there's anything I've learned it's that people will defend their religion until they DIE, which leads to more of an annoying and pointless discussion than one that expands the great recess that is your mind. I do not like conversations that try to decipher what God wants, which was and might still be part of this conversation, although now I realize what Tsunicorn fish was talking about when he said "You keep bringing it up" which I was AWFULLY confused about since I was trying to distance myself as far away from any religious conversation as I could, but now I realize that he was, probably, talking about how I first responded to someone with "It's my belief that God blablabla." Although his comment still makes little sense.

And once again, let me repeat myself by saying I have no idea what God wants to any degree, although I can certainly have my opinion about it.

what are you trying to do with the second part at all if it is an aside?

The person I was talking to had already expressed belief that he DID think homosexuality was a choice, so after saying that I knew it WASN'T, I decided to try and argue with him using HIS logic that homosexuality was a choice. I was trying to cover all the bases. That might not have been the right move to make according to the LOGISTICS OF AN ARGUMENT, which by the way, looks like all you're trying to do. I get the impression that you're not arguing with the things I say, just the WAY I SAY THEM, which really is a very odd thing to do. As if you're randomly giving tips on how to better prepare an argument. "INSTEAD OF SAYING THIS HERE, REARRANGE IT TO THE BEGINNING AND YOU WILL MAKE MUCH BETTER SENSE." Thanks so much. Although I do see what you're getting at.

And yes I appreciate that you agree with my conclusion, don't get me wrong. It pisses me off to no ends when I tell someone I didn't have a choice and I get a raised eyebrow and a frown and a "YES YOU DID!!!"

I don't have time to read what both of you said, but let me end with this (I've got to go to a summer class :x).

It was not my place to speak for Modern. I read what he said and I didn't see him bringing God into it, (I thought he was just doing the same thing I was). Once again, my mistake.

Heh, as for the swiss cheese comment. This is no excuse, but I didn't sleep Friday night, got very little on Saturday, and two hours on Sunday. I'm a cranky train wreck, so it ticked me off that you kept thinking I was brining God into this. Haha, the swiss cheese thing is a joke.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Logistics of argument. I wasn't able to read the able two posts (completely). I'm assuming you mean what I was referring to.

I was attacking what you said, not the way you said it. But in order to attack it properly, I had to say it the same way you said it. Otherwise there would have been no point.

I was just explaining why I said what I said. If you're not talking about that, then ignore me.

I'm done with this thread. Not that it's a bad thread. I just have other stuff I should be doing instead, and my viewpoint has already been made clear.

*goes off laughing about onions and swiss cheese*

Again, I do apologize that I made incorrect assumptions regarding what precisely you were saying in your argument. You could be correct in saying  that a lot of Christians condemn the attraction, and not the action - I was basing my judgment of what Christians believe on what Catholics believe, which is not always accurate. In any case, this quotation is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it summarizes what I thought was the position of most Christian denominations that are opposed to homosexuality:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

As you can see, while it does consider homosexual attraction to be disordered, it is not considered a choice, it condemns only the sexual act, not the inclination, and it does not deny them "Christian perfection". Anyway, I just posted it as that was what I thought was the generally accepted religious position, and that is what influenced me to interpret your statements the way that I did.

I was talking to this guy once, and he said "Personally, homosexuality disgusts me."
Instead of entering into some futile debate of ethics and opinions, I merely said "So the thought of girl-on-girl action grosses you out? What are you, gay?"
Let me tell you... *passes hand over his head and makes a whooshing sound*

Ah, but it is my belief that if God truly didn't want homosexuality then he would have made sexual attraction between men nonexistant. Also I'd like to think that God wants us to do what makes us happy.

If God did make attraction between men nonexistent just because he doesn't approve of it, then he would have made all sin nonexistent.
So in other words, your belief on the matter is poorly thought out.

Also I'd like to think that God wants us to do what makes us happy.

And that's just dumb. If he wanted us to be happy all the time. There wouldn't be war, pain, famine, disease, etc, etc, etc.
He could have easily made the world perfect. He didn't because He wanted to choose to believe in Him, rather than force us to.

Algebra's last two posts are full of win for many reasons. One of them being that I agree with almost every point he brings up.

Anyways, I'm a Catholic, and according to justin's logic, I should feel a burning hatred (exaggeration, yes; please don't kill me. D: ) for homosexuals just because they're attracted to others of the same gender, right? Wrong. I could say this in so many ways or link to previous posts, but I couldn't sum it up any better than Algebras catechism quote. Oh well, I'll try anyways. :|

Being a homosexual is not a sin. The sin is actually practicing homosexuality. You always have a choice. If you actually had no choice but to have sex with guys (or in a females case, with girls... whatever), then no. It wouldn't be a sin. There is no hatred of the homosexual for the attraction, or even for actually practicing homosexuality. After all, they're only human. We all sin. It is, however, being a sin, discouraged.

The biggest flaw I see here, though, is your seemingly intolerance of allowing God/religion into the thread. As others have said, homosexuality is deeply tied in with religion, and in order to have an intelligent debate, you must open up the field. Here's another debate on homosexuality. God's in there, and everybody is debating quite nicely, methinks. Except me, maybe. I love debates, but I'm not that great at actually taking part. (Don't mind the gay powerthirst video at the end... *cough*)

I think that violent/adulterous thoughts are also sins, I would be screwed if that were the case.

But thoughts can often lead to action.

Well, I think it's okay, if you can quickly put the thoughts away. :|

I knew it. I KNEW if I clicked on this post it would be filled with "God says this, God says that" (not literally, but you get the point).

To the people going on about "God" here ;
I'm no Christian but from what I've heard of the Bible, all a Christian needs to do to be part of "Heaven" is to accept Jesus as their saviour. The Bible says he died for their sins, as in, he took all that punishment FOR their sins. The Bible states that no man is perfect, and that the only way to Heaven is by Jesus, not by trying not to sin. I can't remember which part of the Bible it was 'coz I don't read it every day, but I'm sure the Christians here will know.

So why are the Christians here even bothered with what gays do?

Enough of all this religion stuff, PLZ with caps lock and text-speech.

Back to the subject of homosexuality, I don't mind it. I used to swing that way myself (straight now though). As long as they're not pretending to be gay just 'coz it's "unique" or just for attention.

I know I said that I wouldn't post in here again, but I have to address what has just been said. And what I'm about to say pertains to every single sin out there.

Jesus is not a get out of Hell free card. You don't get saved and then sin all you want just because the sin has been payed for. In fact, the Bible is very clear that, while you will still sin (being human) you should want to stop and being saved, the Holy Spirit will convict you when you sin.

To the people going on about "God" here ;
I'm no Christian but from what I've heard of the Bible, all a Christian needs to do to be part of "Heaven" is to accept Jesus as their saviour. The Bible says he died for their sins, as in, he took all that punishment FOR their sins. The Bible states that no man is perfect, and that the only way to Heaven is by Jesus, not by trying not to sin. I can't remember which part of the Bible it was 'coz I don't read it every day, but I'm sure the Christians here will know.

If you're not a Christian, why do you say what the Christians believe? I'm a Christian, and what you just said couldn't be further from the truth. Admittedly, I believe their are some denominations that believe that, but not all. :/

To the people going on about "God" here ;
I'm no Christian but from what I've heard of the Bible, all a Christian needs to do to be part of "Heaven" is to accept Jesus as their saviour. The Bible says he died for their sins, as in, he took all that punishment FOR their sins. The Bible states that no man is perfect, and that the only way to Heaven is by Jesus, not by trying not to sin. I can't remember which part of the Bible it was 'coz I don't read it every day, but I'm sure the Christians here will know.

If it's so easy, why not go ahead and do it?
Invite him into your life.

Well, because then their would be no room to accept the Jewish god, the Muslim god, the Norse gods, Egyptian gods, and all the others. ._.

I mean, one of them leads to salvation, right? But which one...? =O

Seriously though... uh... anyways, simply being a homosexual isn't a sin. It's the giving in to your urges. And this is from a Christian standpoint. Please respect that. I'm not trying to push my beliefs onto others, I'm simply presenting them in hopes of intelligent replies. If you can't accept that some others have different beliefs than you, I have nothing more to say.

wow, seriously people, drop the whole religion thing.

One person says "I don't like homosexuality because it is against my religion"
don't attack their religion, just accept that they feel differently about the matter than you do.

A belief is just that, a belief.  Trying to change that is like trying to stop the world from spinning, so let's just drop it.  I'm tired of people going on religious crusades against homosexuality cuz some 'book' tells 'em it's wrong.  But on the other side, I don't advocate attacking peoples' religions because you feel they are somehow 'wrong'. 

In fact, the topic title is pretty simple
what's your OPINION on gay people?

I was hoping this could be a friendly chat about peoples beliefs and such without degrading into a religious debacle.  But I can see that in the modern world that won't happen.

Also, are any of you homophobes (the ones who feel it is wrong), and if so, can you explain somehow how you feel 'afraid' of gay people?  I was always just curious about how someone could be afraid of two men kissing.

I've never actually met someone with an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality. In my experience, the term homophobia is primarily a rhetorical device - it is used because it implicitly suggests that any negative attitude toward homosexuality can only be understood or dealt with as irrational. That being said, I do think it applies to some people, such as Fred Phelps.

In any case, if someone actually is a homophobe, he/she wouldn't be able to explain why they feel afraid of gay people, as it is by definition an irrational fear. As well ask a Barophobe why they are afraid of gravity.