I dislike PDA, but when I think about it in someone elses point of view, it's not really that bad. I certaintly think that homosexuality is basically the same as heterosexuality in a mental sense. If you love someone, you love someone! it doesn't matter who or whatever love knows no bounds. I think PDA is okay. people should be able to freely express their love for someone else, as long as it's not nasty or obscene. Nobody should ever make out in public, but People should be able to walk arm in arm, hug, and kiss(like a peck). All i'm saying is that People shouldn't feel like they can't hug eachother or give someone a kiss on the cheek in public.

what is all this talk about how perfection can't be reached? you reach perfection by removing all the problems until none remain. and don't say that is impossible because that is what we try to do reach day. if there is a computer error, we don't ignore and say it it impossible to fix or if a person has cancer we don't say it it impossible and give up on searching for a cure.

You're not talking about something as comparitively small here as a computer bug or cancer. The bugs of society are more numerous than the individuals who make it up. Cancer patients - and their families and friends - sometimes want to give up purely to stop the suffering. I don't call perfection removing all the problems until none remain, because new ones are always cropping up. That and problems can be tough - if not impossible - to beat in a life time. I'm virtually a clinical perfectionist, or so my therapist tells me, and if not I beat myself up about getting things "right" and never reaching my goals - which I set too high. My classmates think I'm clever and just glide through school as if it were easier, whilst I'm running around in circles. It all depends on perspective. For instance...

and I didn't say what every one be payed the same, just that they should remove useless hobbies for productive ones.

What do you count as useless hobbies? For me, football is useless, along with most other forms of sports. Football is particularly bad because of hooliganism (you never hear about rioting at rugby matches) and the over-paid players who aren't exactly going out to save lives.

Or are they? I've seen men and boys, some girls, who follow the sport RELIGIOUSLY. It's great for stirring up patriotism, not to mention good exercise for those who indulge in it themselves. Sure, I'd like to see more women's on the telly for the sake of equality, but while I'm not particularly interested I understand it does a world of good for others.

Or religion itself. If I had complete control of the running of the world I'd abolish religion, make the vatican (just as an example) sell all its relics - they really are spectacular - and distribute the wealth evenly. No, forget that. I'd get rid of money as well.

I'm not personally religious, but I can understand how others might honestly believe something's real that I cannot. But even if I were to hypothetically propose to ditch religion there would be UPROAR. The same with what I consider to be useless hobbies for more productive ones. I'd be killing off people's livelihoods. Human experience is subjective; we've all been brought up differently; we all have different ideas of perfection. What's true for one person isn't necessarily true for another, and all that.

clearly, this system of things is not working and instead of trying to correct it, most people just give up on it and say there is nothing that can be done. but, if some one comes along and tries to make a change for the better, the same people who say nothing can be done, tries to stop them.

not only are people not trying to help the situation, they are preventing others from trying to make it better.

we need to change from people who say nothing can be done to a group of people who see the problem and makes the changes needed to fix it.

That's PRECISELY what people have been trying to do since, well, the beginning of mankind. But you've always had somebody else whose considered their view "better" and tried to change it again. Consider missionaries going out to Africa, truly, truly believing Christianity was the True Religion and thinking they could save the souls of the natives - people who had their own customs, their own rites, and who were none less human - or "civilised" - than those who came barging into their lives.

Or lets use Communism - which I don't have anything against either; it's a marvelous theory, it's just been misused and proved not to work in practice - which was meant to improve Russia's society. Even under Lenin, then Starlin, there were elements of Capitalism to give people incentive. It didn't help that there was corruption at the top... and I'm getting tired and my history's sketchy.

People are still trying to correct it. But you can't overhaul things just-like-that. Back to different perspectives and different ideas of the best way to run things... why we have different parties trying to represent different ideas and run the country the way they think's perfect, shunning another group's views... I'm not being pessimistic and I'm not trying to impede on change for the better, but there are so many version's of better and history needs close scrutiny to determine this.

That, and I actually quite like our society; it's so diverse, what with all its religions and cultures and homosexuality and polymory and so on and so forth!

You'd need to get rid of emotions, sexual desire...

I AM going to bed now. Sorry for this jumble.

You're not talking about something as comparitively small here as a computer bug or cancer. The bugs of society are more numerous than the individuals who make it up. Cancer patients - and their families and friends - sometimes want to give up purely to stop the suffering. I don't call perfection removing all the problems until none remain, because new ones are always cropping up.

it is an on going struggle, a purpose to be fulfilled. when new problems arise, we will correct them before they become major problems.

What do you count as useless hobbies?

hobbies that don't really help any thing or aid in the advancement of any thing. I'm sure a lot of kids will be happy if they passed a law that said you had to watch TV and eat candy all day at school. I'm sure that is what a lot of kids want and will be happy with that. but, even tho that will make their lives happy, in the long run, the nation will suffer as a whole because of the lack of education. sure, they got what they wanted now and are happy, but because of that, they will suffer greatly in the future. they wouldn't realize that at the time because they are getting what they want, but later in live they will regret it.

one of the main reasons if failed in the past, as I alread said, was because most of the religious and political leaders were seeking there own fame, fortune, and interest first, not caring about the people. sure there will be an uproar because they got accustomed to their bad ways. it will be like trying to take drugs from an addict, they will suffer at first, but in the long run, it is for the best.

Perfection is subjective. That which is subjective is not static, it is unfixed and ever changing. For this reason, perfection is unobtainable--for there can always be improvement.

Just because perfection is unobtainable does not mean that life has to stagnate; progress can continue in the absence of perfection. We can evolve as a community without ever seeking perfection. Becoming better than we used to be is a attainable and infinite goal.

I spoke about this in the thread about peace--humans as a whole, even those within a community will always be different. What is good for you is not good for me. You cannot make us the same.

Abandoning the individual in favor of the whole is unrealistic. Communism may be the best form of government in theory, but is impossible to implement in reality. You cannot seperate the individual from human nature--greed, avarice, lust, gluttony, etc, etc. These are all things that are natural within us all--and they cannot be erased from us. We are, after all, only animals with a unique level of personal interaction and industry.

Ignoring the individual is ignoring the power that that individual has--improving the community at the individual level will do more to improve the community than trying to implement community wide improvements because improved individuals will be able to improve the community. You cannot have a improved community without improved individuals. Unhappy individuals will decay a community; happy individuals will bolster a community.


Your argument is theoretical and does not take into account reality as a whole. Take some time and actually understand the world before you try to decide what would be best for the world. One modality of thought is illogical and unproductive, as is abandoning individual satisfaction. Humans are not computers or viruses. You can't just ignore the human element because you don't like it.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

Humans are not computers or viruses. You can't just ignore the human element because you don't like it.

lol. qfe <3

Originally Posted by The Collection

the growth, perfection and export of our selfs. things that do not add to the harmony of that, needs to be removed. this applies to a wide ranges of things, including homosexuality and other things.

Why precisely do you think homosexuality goes against the bettering of the human race? If not in the sense of procreation, the only way I can see it worsening society is when groups of people don't understand it and are prejudiced towards it. To them it would seem a drain on society, but for the homosexual community full acceptance and openness would increase the harmony in society - NOT the elimination of it. Suppressing sexual desires or attraction of most any kind is damaging to psychology, I believe... Prejudice is damning for reasons like stereotyping.

I disagree with other sexualities, but I don't disdain them from being my friends or anything.
However, if a girl starts coming on to me..I freak out, and I usually get really pissed at them.
Basically, I don't want those people being attracted to me. I'm not interested, so eh, no.
I don't mind them living happily with others that follow the same sexuality, though! That's fine. Live how you want.
Just...please, no, I don't want a part of that lifestyle.

read all of the above, people making great statements lol.

And by the way The Collective; Communism failed. Communism I don't have a problem with in it's purest form. As a theory of a way of life on PAPER. However when applied to the human race, it simply doesn't work. Human's won't go along with it. Some individuals are too easily corrupted. On topic;

I can't help but think who decides what 'Perfection" is? We can only move towards an ideal if it is defined. And no one has the ability to define for the whole. They can barely define it for themselves. So we strive to be "better"..but not "perfect".
And why shouldn't homosexuality be furthering society towards something better than what it is? I think being able to freely love whoever you choose and not be bashed for it makes the world a better place. It promotes less hate, less violence, less self loathing (because homosexual teens hold the highest suicide rate)<--less family tragedies through awful loss because young gay people live in fear to come out.
Just imagine if they didn't have to be afraid. Wouldn't that make a better society as a whole? Promote less suffering for gays and straight people alike? There are only a few things the "Hive" as PerfectBlue called it xD can agree on; things like wanting no violence. Wanting acceptance. Desiring to lead happy lives. The more the world can accept such inconsequential differences among humans, the sooner society will move towards a more enlightened state of being.
If people stop fixating on how homosexuals choose to live their lives which harms no one, they have the time to deal with *other important* issues that would certainly help the whole.

Eve: I don't think anyone would want to drag a straight person kicking and screaming into their lifestyle xD. However it's cool that even though you're not so comfortable with it, you're still able to be tolerant of them living their lives in the way they wish with each other :3

~
Hmm, this is a tough one.
Personally, no.
But, most people will talk about it or laugh.
xP
~

Here, here about the suicide rate.

I live in a very open area - in fact, we had the first civil partnership in my country in the city near where I live. You can walk along the sea front and see all sorts of couples holding hands. It's a really cool place.

But there are documentaries on the news about centres set up for struggling teenagers, because even if our area is open there's still a lot of fear bubbling around. It's not easy.

It'd be cool if people didn't have to hang up rainbow flags - as if there were no notice or attention given to divide the relationships - but hey, it's better than being chucked in prison.

Another interesting tidbit; quite an astonishing per centage of men - I can't remember where I read this, so I'll have to check it up - who try to enter the Church - become priests, etc, etc... - have indications of being gay. Which is maybe the saddest part at all, if they're trying to repent/abstain... It's frightening, the effect social influence can have on a person's decisions.

it is true that they are nothing hurting any thing, but if they helping any thing, there purpose becomes ideal and no progress is made. we are always growing and expanding to improve our self. I believe there is a point were no more improving is needed, only growth. I doubt that will be in this generation or and near generations to come. useless things must be done away with if process it to continue at an elevated rate.

corrects that are needed in society to reach perfection are well known, but personal greed and corrupt prevent mankind from reaching it's full. the train was invented thousand of years ago, but they didn't use it because it reduce the need for slaves. the water engine was already invented but it was destroyed because it would of lowered oil prices at the time. the computer was also invented thousands of years ago. imagine how far we could of gone if the corruption was rooted out.

but there are many theories of why people turn gay, but what we also need to consider why people hate them so. a recent study shows that ape societies reject and cast out homosexuals among their groups as part of their instinct. this arises the question is it part of our instinct too. if it is, some of us are seemingly overcoming our natural traits.

and if that is possible, can we over come our natural traits of greed and corruption too?

I have no problem with it whatsoever except that now that it's hitting big into the media, once again, everyone in my school is claiming to be bi when they really aren't as they go around calling people dykes and whatnot and making nasty faces at people they think are. but then I guess even if I weren't questioning my own sexuality, love is love either way.

The Collection: I respect you posting...but as for your last post..o.O..quite honestly I have no idea how the first 3/4's of it has anything to do with homosexuality >_>;. All I'm seeing is how humans can reach a utopian society..but at the same time you contradict yourself by first talking about how if gay people are not hurting anything or anyone, then their purpose becomes ideal (which you were asking at first how can they help society perfect itself..) ..then if they become ideal (which some people might say is a synonym for "perfect") no progress is made yet there is a point where no MORE progress is needed...??? What are you talking about D: ?

Now we're down to comparing humans to apes...well homosexual activity has been recorded in all sorts of creatures on earth, from dolphins to birds. And there are many different types of apes. Some types don't outcast homosexual activity at all. The only thing this may prove is that among primates, and many other creatures, homosexuality may be something that a creature is born with. And is a natural part of the human spectrum of behaviour.
But we can't really compare ourselves with apes..because things like infanticide is considered acceptable behaviour in some primate societies and I would dare say most humans don't approve of that in the slightest.
They also haven't studied why this behaviour occurs too much yet because it was taboo to even suggest homosexuality existed in humans let alone animals. Anyone who invested the time and money to study it would have been completely alienated by society. So they're just starting to study different species *now*. And even now, we are hard pressed to find any scientists or experts to talk about homosexuality existing in the "natural kingdom" (because it does) for fear of the political ramifications such studies would receive by the world of people who believe it to be entirely unnatural.
I mean, it took Texas until 2003 to declare gay people could legally have sex...I don't think they can handle the concept of it being "natural" in wide variety species yet xD

Are you suggesting that heterosexual is the "natural" - I hate that word - way of being, and so is what we should aim for? To my understanding, like gender, it's more of a spectrum, and I highly doubt many people can be completely straight or completely gay - it's a human coping method to simplify and section things to make them understandable.

The curious thing is, there's so little difference between men and women - a single Y chromosome that drives the doling out of hormones - and then so much tumult in gender that it makes more sense for the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum to be so varied. There's no such thing as the "natural" woman, because the stereotype is based on the society's perception, and if someone were trying to live up to that stereotype no doubt they'd be neglecting some sort of behaviour considered more "masculine".

Imperato and McGinley did a study on pseudo-hermaphroditism, on a culture that accepted a third gender due to a genetic "abnormality" that involved boys not getting their first boost of testosterone in the womb. They're born with the physical appearance as girls, and are raised as such until the second boost at puberty where they take on a more male appearance and identity, if-they-so-wish. I think in their society men are considered superior to women so there's lots of advantages in suddenly becoming a boy to drive them, but to me the point is that there's so little easy biological distinction - in genetically "normal" men and women alike - that it becomes unsurprising that we can fall in love with the same or different genders.

Especially when "love" is viewed as a chemical boost to ensure procreation and the care of children. Only when people are infactuated are they so over-protective and posessive, and once the kick's died down it develops into a very deep friendship, or wanes out... For heterosexual love anyway; I don't know what drives infactuation with homosexual. Looked at like that though, you could have a hopelessly deep friendship with a person of the same gender, with or without a sexual side, which I guess does the defining.

I don't know the finite details; I've only got what I've read and learnt in psychology in broad sweeps, and even that can be wrong or a different interpretation drawn, but my thoughts on the subject. I certainly don't believe in love in the media-movie-preaching sense, but I do reckon couples can sustain a deep friendship with a healthy and imaginative sex life.

( Then of course you have the fact that about only 16% of the human population declare themselves "monogomous" and even then they're strictly not; they just have one partner at a time. )

Originally Posted by The Collection

it is true that they are nothing hurting any thing, but if they helping any thing, there purpose becomes ideal and no progress is made. we are always growing and expanding to improve our self. I believe there is a point were no more improving is needed, only growth. I doubt that will be in this generation or and near generations to come. useless things must be done away with if process it to continue at an elevated rate.

corrects that are needed in society to reach perfection are well known, but personal greed and corrupt prevent mankind from reaching it's full. the train was invented thousand of years ago, but they didn't use it because it reduce the need for slaves. the water engine was already invented but it was destroyed because it would of lowered oil prices at the time. the computer was also invented thousands of years ago. imagine how far we could of gone if the corruption was rooted out.

but there are many theories of why people turn gay, but what we also need to consider why people hate them so. a recent study shows that ape societies reject and cast out homosexuals among their groups as part of their instinct. this arises the question is it part of our instinct too. if it is, some of us are seemingly overcoming our natural traits.

and if that is possible, can we over come our natural traits of greed and corruption too?

You haven't answered my question. What's wrong with homosexuality that it needs to be wheedled out of society - if your Utopian (nowhere) vision where ever to work in practice? Because surely heteosexual couples "idealise" and impede "progress" by indulging in their form of love as well, then.

Surely the greatest impediment to "progress" is ignorance of the human condition or thinking you've found "the answer" (another reason why religion bugs me so much, and extreme Darwinists; I certainly don't know "the answer" but we may find another theory yet).

As I've already mentioned, there are plenty of homosexuals who are extremely creative and contributing to society - perhaps because of the strife they've faced in having to accept themselves and the fact there are some folks in society who hate their guts - without even KNOWING them. Misery and creases in society spurs creativity, and I can't help but feel in a Utopian society we'd all go bananas for having nothing to do. We'd all need to be precisely the same to get along "harmoniously" and any teeny-weeny inconruence would create havoc. Go and read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World or 1984 if you want a btter idea, I'd say...

Edit: And I've heard of more records where all sorts of animals in sex, homosexual and heterosexual, to pass the time of day. If you could cite a link to yours or provide more information so I can look it up, I'd be grateful.

I did a research paper for a seminar on Close Relationships my senior year of uni and it was a comparison between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, focusing on longevity and features of relationships.

Lesbian couples have the longest average relationships and then heterosexual couples are closely tailed by gay male couples--this is based on married or unioned couples. Lesbians who are not married or unioned are more even with heterosexual couples, and non-married or unioned gay male couples are last.

Homosexual couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to marry or union out of love. The number one reason for heterosexual marriage is financial stability--probably because single heterosexual women are the least likely to have health insurance and are paid the least.

I don't have any specifics on attraction since I didn't include it in my paper.

That's really rather interesting.

I personally have no problem with the homosexuals and bis of the world. Just because they are different doesn't mean that they aren't people. And if you are against gay marriage then 'shut up and don't get one stupid' is my personal opinion about it.

I've taken genetics courses, and I'm majoring in biotech. I can say, with absoulute certanty, that to date there has never been an alteration that "causes" homosexuality. I do not doubt there are people trying to find one, and I don't doubt that some people might be offended, because they like to think (if they do believe it's a fault) that there's something causing it, and that it can't possibly be them deciding to be that way. A scapegoat, if you will. I've noticed that an argument a lot of homosexuals use is "It's just the way I am." Well, that would be true, if it was an entirely physical thing.

But you see, things like this are largely developmental, and like emotions and other psyhological traits, are nurtured in life by certain situations. If there is a large influence in the childhood or puberty stage of a child's life, that will be entwined in how that child develops, unless that individual so CHOOSES to go against it, which is not impossible, but often difficult.

If you don't understand what I mean, try reading a little about fetishes too. It's the exact same principle. Fetishes are developed in early childhood, by certain scenarios as percieved by the child. We don't know everything about why they develop, but they are not BORN with the fetishes. The fetishes develop, and the child nurtures them on his or her own. There's no argument that a child develops both based on genetics and on how his environment nurtures him. But it's arguable that nurturing provides more of an influence than people realize, and that a lot of the things that DEVELOP (nurtured behaviors) are blamed on what was already THERE (genetics) even though that simply is not the case.

For example: I recently read an article in discovery magazine about identical twins that were seperated at birth for undisclosed reasons. One of them was raised in a healthy, nurturing environment, and one was raised in a neglecting home. Later on, the twins were discovered by scientists doing a study on the dofferences between "nature and nurture" and they were compared. The child that was neglected had grown to be a small man, slightly overweight, very pale complexion, and losing his hair. The child that was nurtured was SEVERAL inches taller than his twin brother, had a healthy complexion, his facial features were more well rounded, was a good weight, and had all of his hair. since they were identical, they shared their genetic code. So how could they be so dofferent? environment affects a lot more than what people are usually willing to admit.

My point is:
1. subtle changes in the environment and how the child PERCIEVES his or her environment can nuture developmental changes that are not affected by genetics.
2. This applies not just to sexual preference, but to fetishes, and even to some physical developmental traits, such as height, hair color and amount, weight, skin quality, and to a small degree, facial features.
3. My conclusion is that homosexual preferences are nurtured my the environment, and by the individual themselves, and as a result, are by choice. If you argue that the child was raised in a home that taught him or her that homosexuality was bad, and wonder how then that might affect them, consider the following, since i once knew a person like this. i will not disclose any names:
The child, when he was away from home, was often picked on and abused by peers. The child, as all young children do, found more comfort in being around those of the same gender than those of the opposite gender. The child had a few friends of the same gender that stood up for him, making him more attached to them. These subtle things eventually led the child to lean more towards homosexuality, because as he reached puberty, he still felt very awkward around girls (which is natural) but much more comfortable around guys. He began to choose male relations over female relations. When his parents found out, their adamant scolding made him, since he was a defiant young teenager, as most youngsters are, want to do the opposite of what they said.

Nobody else in his family was homosexual.

All evidence points towards developmental causes and his own personal choices, yet he blamed genetics frequently, saying that he was born that way. The truth is, it's only that the world and his family taught him that he was wrong. He wanted to be accepted, so he needed something to blame other than himself.

So without any more ranting, I'll conclude that I agree with pik. You choose your own path, and the only person you control is yourself. I won't get into my own personal beliefs, and simply will say this:

No matter WHAT you feel, your actions are yours and yours alone. Feelings can be changed by willpower, and often feelings change on their own based on the environment. Basing your life and actions on feelings is a foolish thing to do (this of course, is referring to anything, not just homosexuality, but multiple other things that could harm you or someone else. I won't get into all the hundreds of possibilities). It's true that everyone has feelings, but it's also true that you don't have to act on them all the time. What i'm getting at is that such things are also choices people make. If you want to make those choices, then fine, make them as you wish. It's your life, not mine. I make my own choices, and I try very hard to do so responsibly.

But don't blame genetics for your own decisions. There's no need to. Instead of saying: "This is just the way I am. I was born this way. Accept it" try saying "This is the way I CHOOSE to be, and it's my life." It's time that the world started taking responsibility and stop blaming things on everything else they can think of. I could get into an entirely DIFFERENT discussion about responsibility, promises, relationships, and marriage in this day and age but that's another topic for another day.

I didn't type this up to anger anyone, but undoubtedly, at least one person will be upset. If it does upset you, before you attack me, first ask yourself why it upsets you. It might be that this food for thought struck a nerve and you don't want to admit it.

That is all.

i have 2 gay uncles.
and there the coolest guys ever.

excpet one comitted suicide last week..=[

oh, I'm sorry to hear. I hope you feel better.

I have no problem with homosexuality.
To me, if I like someone's personality and all that jazz, it matter what gender they are. If I like them, I like them. I suppose that is what you guys would call Bi, correct?

Yes, the attention seeking 'fake' dykes who broadcast their fake homosexuality really bother me. I know a lot of girls who do it for attention.

I think gays should be allowed to be married and adopt.

The church oopses gay marriage because it is wrong to the church. Who ever said marriage had to be under God? Maybe I don't want a Christian marriage. Maybe I just want to go to town hall and sign papers.
People don't have to be married in a church.
Ugh, people were getting married before Christianity... so really, I don't get it.

@The Collection: Your argument only looks at one side of the argument: You assume that because scientists haven't yet (if they ever will) found a gene that predisposes (because genes do not cause personality traits) sexual preference that there is then no biological proof for homosexuality.

That argument ignores other physical proof of tangible differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Perhaps you've heard about the studies done that have found that the brains of homosexual men and women are more like the brain of the opposite hetereosexual gender than their own physical gender? Or that the brains of homosexuals have physical structural differences?

One cannot say that environment alone affects personality. Twin studies on a whole show that it cannot be "nurture" alone-- Why else would hundreds of sets of twins growing up in differing environments grow up to be startlingly similar? You cannot take one piece of evidence (your twin example) and say it out weighs the multitude of evidence against your argument.

Studies on homosexual individuals find more and more that they report being aware that they were "different" from an early age--much like a minority child will report being aware that they are "different" before they fully understand the differences of race. How can this be? Race is often immedietly apparant as it's physical, but sexual preference on the other hand is not.

Your argument compares sexual preference to sexual deviance. The problem with this argument is everyone has fetishes. Deviation from the sexual norm are caused by environmental factors, but is not always considered taboo. I assume that your argument is only taking into account extreme fetishes where the afflicted party cannot acheive sexual release in the absence of their fetish--these are psychological disorders that are seperate from typical deviation and are very serious in nature. They are always caused by trauma or abuse.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is very different. It is not caused by trauma or abuse. Homosexuals can acheive sexual release with person of the opposite gender. You cannot pinpoint an environmental cause for homosexuality because homosexuals come from all different walks of life, races, cultures, etc. Therefore one has no choice but to assume that it cannot be environmental factors, because there are just too many factors to suggest causality.

We know that people are born with predisposed personality traits. We know that there exists gene pairs that will predispose rage. We also know that people are born predisposed to schitzopherenia--but we have not yet identified the genes that predispose this. We know this because the schitzopherenic population shares only a history of behavior patterns and not a history of environmental factors. Knowing this and everything else we know to be true about personality, we must assume that sexual preference is predisposed from birth.

More proof: You cannot condition homosexuals to become heterosexuals. You can convince them to behave as a heterosexual, but they will still be attracted to the same sex and derive the most pleasure and happiness from the same sex.

Sorry, but your psedo-intillectual argument ignores far too many factors.

I don't understand why on earth a church would oppose homosexuality because I thought that they were to believe that the being accepted and loved everyone for who they were! anyone know the answer to that one? :?

Originally Posted by swissfishwish1

I don't understand why on earth a church would oppose homosexuality because I thought that they were to believe that the being accepted and loved everyone for who they were! anyone know the answer to that one? :?

The christian church did not originally oppose homosexuality. It wasn't until the Dark Ages when it was believed that sperm were just tiny undeveloped babies that stigma around sex started arising. The church started demonizing masturbation, sex that wasn't for reproduction, etc. They saw every act of sex that wasn't for reproduction as an act of infantcide. Women were just baby incubators.

So that's how it started.