[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Livia

Thinking about what some (not all...) reglious people are like, who the hell would want to spend eternity with them anyway?!

See you there. It'll be your round.

No worries, will have a nice cold one waiting for you.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by Livia

Really? Many times? Where exactly?

The Bible also advocates beating your wife, beating your children, selling your children into slavery, owning slaves, stoning people to death for adultery and burning people to death for growing two kinds of crops in the same field.

If you're going to suggest that because something is in the Bible it has to be adhered to, I think everyone on this forum, including me, is in big, BIG trouble.

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

[Late for the Party]

“Religion easily has the greatest bull**** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, talk about a good bull**** story"

George Carlin

[flamingGalah!]

Religion is also the cause of most of the worlds wars...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by toby843

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

If you aren't religious, I'm an confused why you're arguing so hard in support of a couple of passages of a book you don't consider God's Word.

So you've given me two Old Testament mentions, both Leviticus (read the rest of it and see the all the other things you're not allowed to do) and two New Testament passages. You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so presumably Andrew is out, after last night's performance. Oh, and you can be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. And working on the Sabbath includes going shopping, cooking and even answering the telephone. So, are you going to embrace the bit that says homosexuality is an abomination, but ignore all the other "abominations" because you consider them to be archaic?

Sixty years ago people were sent to prison for being homosexual. Society has moved on.

When the Bible was written the world was a very different place. The bits about homosexuality are as outdated as the bits about being allowed to own slaves.

Incidentally, also in Leviticus [21.20] it states that you may not approach God's alter if you have a defect of sight. Our Rabbi wears glasses. Clearly he thinks there are bits that are past their sell-by date too.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, .

Sh1t....i'd better find other digs after i kick it....

[Livia]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Sh1t....i'd better find other digs after i kick it....

Don't worry, we're getting party together in The Other Place. And Shasown's getting the first round.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

Don't worry, we're getting party together in The Other Place. And Shasown's getting the first round.

Sounds hot stuff....

[MariaLeFrink2]

Apologies if thius has been posted before, but I've just seen this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBkgd...eature=related

Dave in a wheelchair around toen, 'healing and blessing' people. Afterwards to his congregation, he lets them know that even MUSLIMS wanted to convert.

YUCH

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by toby843

Ok, I didn't really want to get into a big religous debate as I am not religous myself but here goes:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


I think that just about covers the bible thing. Anyway, as I said, I'm not religous so I am not suggesting anything about how we live our lives.

I'm simply saying, Dave has his beliefs and he is entitled to them, and, as a christian country, we should not hold them against him.

You're right, there are some outrageous parts to the bible, hence the fact I am not religous, but if our country was founded in Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoism etc etc. . we would find ourselves living in an altogether different society, wouldn't you agree, and in some ways, nowhere near as free as we are to live our lives.

So the point I'm making is as a society we feel the need to pick holes in beliefs yet moan and argue when we feel we are not being treated fairly. We seem to have inherited an "I owe you nothing but you owe me everything" culture, almost americanist in its reliance on blame culture and compensation, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a snap shot of societies values 60 years ago and applied them to todays public, life would be a much smoother affair.

There are more verses in the bible about women not cutting their hair or what type of food to eat. "The bible told me so" is no defense, especially not in 2010 when so little is taken literally/seriously. The scarce passages in the Bible against homosexuality, the same ones you mentioned and I've personally heard over 100 times, are highlighted because of Western society's current fixation with homosexuality. And this was taught by our parents, not a book nearly no one reads. The Bible's just used as a shield in hope's no one has the balls to challenge their ignorant archaic beliefs, as in cases like this.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by Livia

If you aren't religious, I'm an confused why you're arguing so hard in support of a couple of passages of a book you don't consider God's Word.

So you've given me two Old Testament mentions, both Leviticus (read the rest of it and see the all the other things you're not allowed to do) and two New Testament passages. You'll have undoubtedly noticed that it also says drunkards shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so presumably Andrew is out, after last night's performance. Oh, and you can be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. And working on the Sabbath includes going shopping, cooking and even answering the telephone. So, are you going to embrace the bit that says homosexuality is an abomination, but ignore all the other "abominations" because you consider them to be archaic?

Sixty years ago people were sent to prison for being homosexual. Society has moved on.

When the Bible was written the world was a very different place. The bits about homosexuality are as outdated as the bits about being allowed to own slaves.

Incidentally, also in Leviticus [21.20] it states that you may not approach God's alter if you have a defect of sight. Our Rabbi wears glasses. Clearly he thinks there are bits that are past their sell-by date too.

Hi, see this is what I like, this is what these forums are all about, healthy debate on relevant subjects. not mindless childish slagging for no real reason. Thanks you Livia.

So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

When I talked about society 60 years ago my point was that if we could take their values we would be better off, not their laws. Would you not rather live in a world where the dustman would take your bin even if the lid wasn't shut slightly? Or, not worry about sending your child on a school sports event in case they bang their head against another child and the other parents sue you? Would you rather not be surrounded by health and safety signs everywhere yo go telling you not to do what you quite clearly wouldn't do anyway? And so on and so forth!

Now I'm not homophobic in any way but in my opinion, and it is my opinion and I'm allowed it, I don't agree that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, and I am happy to think that knowing that I am allowed an opinion, ergo, Dave should be allowed his religous views, after all, without national identity and the great and triumphant history of our country what would we be left with in todays society of immigration and assylum??

[toby843]

Originally Posted by stonedape

There are more verses in the bible about women not cutting their hair or what type of food to eat. "The bible told me so" is no defense, especially not in 2010 when so little is taken literally/seriously. The scarce passages in the Bible against homosexuality, the same ones you mentioned and I've personally heard over 100 times, are highlighted because of Western society's current fixation with homosexuality. And this was taught by our parents, not a book nearly no one reads. The Bible's just used as a shield in hope's no one has the balls to challenge their ignorant archaic beliefs, as in cases like this.

I wouldn't say my beliefs are archaic, I believe we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to an opinion or view. I have absoloutely nothing against same sex couples. See above for my opinion.
I did not post on this thread with the intention of being anti-gay, I am simply arguing for Dave's right to a religous belief.

I'm not sure what your point on western societies fixation with homosexuality is, in my opinion homosexuality is more accepted now than at any other time. I'm not sure what you mean?

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by toby843

I wouldn't say my beliefs are archaic, I believe we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to an opinion or view. I have absoloutely nothing against same sex couples. See above for my opinion.
I did not post on this thread with the intention of being anti-gay, I am simply arguing for Dave's right to a religous belief.

I'm not sure what your point on western societies fixation with homosexuality is, in my opinion homosexuality is more accepted now than at any other time. I'm not sure what you mean?

Didn't mean to insinuate you are anti-gay or you hold these positions I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against the common belief. And it is archaic. The Greeks would call the view archaic, and the Greeks are archaic.

My point on Western society's fixation with homosexuality is that this debate has almost nothing to do with the Bible, which was your initial argument. The Bible says it, they believe it, move on. But it's not that simple, because there's so many moral laws in the Bible they look past consciously or unconsciously. So why is this the issue where Leviticus applies? It's our society. Homosexuality has to be one of the biggest "moral" issues of our time, and it's literally which genitals you prefer.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by toby843

...
So....Like I said before, I'm not religous, I'm not arguing for or against the bible, I'm arguing for Dave's right to have a religous view, and one that should by all rights be shared by the majority of the coutry as it is christian coutry by foundation.

So you think everyone in this country should be against gay "marriage" & you do not agree with same sex couples adopting children, but you are not homophobic... hmmm, well you sure hold some homophobic views...

[toby843]

Originally Posted by stonedape

Didn't mean to insinuate you are anti-gay or you hold these positions I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against the common belief. And it is archaic. The Greeks would call the view archaic, and the Greeks are archaic.

My point on Western society's fixation with homosexuality is that this debate has almost nothing to do with the Bible, which was your initial argument. The Bible says it, they believe it, move on. But it's not that simple, because there's so many moral laws in the Bible they look past consciously or unconsciously. So why is this the issue where Leviticus applies? It's our society. Homosexuality has to be one of the biggest "moral" issues of our time, and it's literally which genitals you prefer.

Ok, then lets put the bible to one side, as anyway I am not religous. From a moral stand point then, at the moment I would say society is very pro homosexual, almost every single school accepts it into lesson for children about growing up and forming relationships, it features very heavily in factual videos made specifically for teens. It has become part of the positive discrimination argument along with race and physical ability. Our media views have changed to accept and in some ways celebrate homosexuals, its almost like you can't have anything to do with fashion on tv unless you are gay, am I right?
You see, society at the moment is in almost a "gay fever" where it feels the need to celebrate homosexuality. So I would say the moral issue is really, do we think its the correct way to go?
And I still believe in Dave's inherent right to a religious belief, we wouldn't stop a muslim reading their Koran in the house would we?

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by toby843

Ok, then lets put the bible to one side, as anyway I am not religous. From a moral stand point then, at the moment I would say society is very pro homosexual, almost every single school accepts it into lesson for children about growing up and forming relationships, it features very heavily in factual videos made specifically for teens. It has become part of the positive discrimination argument along with race and physical ability. Our media views have changed to accept and in some ways celebrate homosexuals, its almost like you can't have anything to do with fashion on tv unless you are gay, am I right?
You see, society at the moment is in almost a "gay fever" where it feels the need to celebrate homosexuality. So I would say the moral issue is really, do we think its the correct way to go?
And I still believe in Dave's inherent right to a religious belief, we wouldn't stop a muslim reading their Koran in the house would we?

They're on videos in school, they monopolize televised fashion, so that's (positive) discrimination? Maybe it's different in the UK, but every boy in school besides the top dog was called a fag every day in school, and for men who actually acted effeminate, goodbye happiness/social life. I'd say they deserve a little video in school.

The moral issue is whether two people of the same sex having a sexual relationship is morally right or wrong. Two consenting adults having sex harms no one, and in fact helps people out a great deal, as anyone who has had sex would know. There's the "non-natural" argument, which defeats itself as homosexuals exist in nature, and not just in humans. There's the "no procreation" argument which defeats itself as any trait that causes infertility will be rare in a population and never "take over", and the same stigmas are not attached to infertile straight couples. And there's the Biblical argument, which we've already gone over.

In the end, morality just isn't determined by the Bible. For the most part, people have kept the parts of the Bible that make moral sense like murder and theft while discarding the bits that don't matter like witchcraft, dietary codes and not working on Sunday. We just haven't all figured out homosexuality is in the 2nd category yet.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

So you think everyone in this country should be against gay "marriage" & you do not agree with same sex couples adopting children, but you are not homophobic... hmmm, well you sure hold some homophobic views...

Well you're right about me not agreeing that same sex couples should adopt children. As for me wanting the whole country to be against gay marriage, thats not what I meant. I meant as a christian country the general view should be we follow christian guidelines, as a country.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by stonedape

The moral issue is whether two people of the same sex having a sexual relationship is morally right or wrong. Two consenting adults having sex harms no one, and in fact helps people out a great deal, as anyone who has had sex would know. .

Some people will say that it harms both of the men. They are perverting their natural physiology and sexuality.
This causes imbalance, psychological problems, mental problems but maybe the worst thing is that they don't learn how to correct their thinking/bodies to their natural heterosexual states and sadly miss out on potentially finding the woman of their dreams and enjoying a life together with her.

This may be where Dave or others stand and they believe they are the ones who truly love 'gays'.
They could even argue that people like you HURT them by actually encouraging them to continue perverting themselves.

Friends who love friends want them to quit smoking. They certainly don't try and encourage the bad habit.
Enemies would encourage it and even buy their opponent cigarettes and congratulate them for bravely smoking them saying 'nothing will go wrong' and 'its who you are' and 'see.. you are happy!'.

The problem with people like you (meaning our views) is that you presume that homosexuality is good.
At no point do you even consider the possibility it may be bad.
So for you the only explanations (in your mind) is that anyone who disagrees must be uninformed or must be trying to 'hurt gays'.
No.
In fact people like Dave (in his mind, in his intentions) believes he is doing something to love and help homosexuals.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by stonedape

They're on videos in school, they monopolize televised fashion, so that's (positive) discrimination? Maybe it's different in the UK, but every boy in school besides the top dog was called a fag every day in school, and for men who actually acted effeminate, goodbye happiness/social life. I'd say they deserve a little video in school.

The moral issue is whether two people of the same sex having a sexual relationship is morally right or wrong. Two consenting adults having sex harms no one, and in fact helps people out a great deal, as anyone who has had sex would know. There's the "non-natural" argument, which defeats itself as homosexuals exist in nature, and not just in humans. There's the "no procreation" argument which defeats itself as any trait that causes infertility will be rare in a population and never "take over", and the same stigmas are not attached to infertile straight couples. And there's the Biblical argument, which we've already gone over.

In the end, morality just isn't determined by the Bible. For the most part, people have kept the parts of the Bible that make moral sense like murder and theft while discarding the bits that don't matter like witchcraft, dietary codes and not working on Sunday. We just haven't all figured out homosexuality is in the 2nd category yet.

Ok so you're not in the UK? What I mean by positive discrimintation is that it is a widely held belief that employers will pick the minority (Gay, Race, Physical abilty etc) over the standars white manle/female in order to not be seen as discriminating against a certain demographic.

So do we think its right to teach the next generation homosexuality is right? Thats a question not an opinion by the way.
You're right about people using the parts of the bible they want and not the parts they don't. It happens in almost every religion, and usually the ones who follow all the guidelines to the letter invariably end up in a very unhappy society. As I've said before I'm not religous so lets leave the religous views to Dave.

So there is no harm in two consenting adults having sex? Well the worldwide statistic on AIDS that clearly state homosexual males are in a higher risk category would argue your point I think. But yes you are right to a degree, any adults that choose to indulge in homosexuality have the right to do so. But should we be in the situation where a 10 year old child is worrying whether they are gay or not? I would say we are only in this position because of the pro gay attitude of general culture. I don't mean to say I want gays banished to an underground scene in any way, I am not anti gay, I'm just arguing do we want our young children to feel in that position.

The non natural argument doesn't really add up in a pro gay way as there are no solely homosexual animals, there are animals that indulge in homosexul behaviour but will still mate with the other sex for pro creation, human homosexuals won't do that, with the exception of bi-sexuals, but we're talking homosexual here. And I would add that humans have developed (or been given???!!!) a far more complex and powerful brain, wheras homosexual animals are solely in it for physical gratification. Animals lick their own anus, would that mean its acceptable for you to in public?

The no creation argument I can't see as a real argument to be honest. There is no situation that comes to mind where we will be stuck for having babies to be honest. So you can have that one!! haha

I like this, thanks.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Some people will say that it harms both of the men. They are perverting their natural physiology and sexuality.
This causes imbalance, psychological problems, mental problems but maybe the worst thing is that they don't learn how to correct their thinking/bodies to their natural heterosexual states and sadly miss out on potentially finding the woman of their dreams and enjoying a life together with her.

This may be where Dave or others stand and they believe they are the ones who truly love 'gays'.
They could even argue that people like you HURT them by actually encouraging them to continue perverting themselves.

Friends who love friends want them to quit smoking. They certainly don't try and encourage the bad habit.
Enemies would encourage it and even buy their opponent cigarettes and congratulate them for bravely smoking them saying 'nothing will go wrong' and 'its who you are' and 'see.. you are happy!'.

The problem with people like you (meaning our views) is that you presume that homosexuality is good.
At no point do you even consider the possibility it may be bad.
So for you the only explanations (in your mind) is that anyone who disagrees must be uninformed or must be trying to 'hurt gays'.
No.
In fact people like Dave (in his mind, in his intentions) believes he is doing something to love and help homosexuals.

If you think there is a link between homosexuality and mental disease that is not based on discrimination from society, you just haven't read enough peer-reviewed papers on the subject. So yes, you are uninformed. It is not a nicotine addiction. Good intentions don't mean jack, the view is ignorant and the result is negative.

Don't know if you're a troll or legit, but it's views like those above that cause hormonal gay kids to go shooting themselves or living as closeted hermits that don't have sex the rest of their lives, and cause more moral harm than anything you imagine preferring the same sex does.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by stonedape

Don't know if you're a troll or legit, but it's views like those above that cause hormonal gay kids to go shooting themselves or living as closeted hermits that don't have sex the rest of their lives, and cause more moral harm than anything you imagine preferring the same sex does.

I'm sorry but I would suggest its the confused kids that cause themselves to shoot themselves. When homosexuality is so prevalant in our society and is encouraged and given the moral seal of approval it will of course lead to young adults trying to decide if they want to be homosexual or not.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by toby843

I'm sorry but I would suggest its the confused kids that cause themselves to shoot themselves. When homosexuality is so prevalant in our society and is encouraged and given the moral seal of approval it will of course lead to young adults trying to decide if they want to be homosexual or not.

No, it's the negative messages about being inherently mentally/physically unnatural or diseased, uselessness of life if you don't have a wife, etc, as were just expressed by ElProximo. Again, don't know if ElProximo's a minority view in the UK, but he'd be in great company in the US. However celebrated you perceive homosexuality, why would anyone choose to be in a minority if they could be "normal"?

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by stonedape

If you think there is a link between homosexuality and mental disease that is not based on discrimination from society, you just haven't read enough peer-reviewed papers on the subject.

And if you think homosexual behavior is helpful, mentally healthy then YOU don't know a damn thing and haven't read the literature and don't know what you are talking about.

You may think your helping gays by encouraging and condoning them but you are hurting them.
Your 'righteous intentions' don't mean jack. You hurt people.

but it's views like those above that cause hormonal gay kids to go shooting themselves or living as closeted hermits that don't have sex the rest of their lives, and cause more moral harm than anything you imagine preferring the same sex does.

There is a massive suicide, drug overdose rate among homosexuals.
Because they have twisted their minds and physiology and become confused and upset from what they are doing which is unnatural.
Then,
Because people like you keep telling them they 'ought to feel good about it' and they don't - they feel even MORE despair.
People like you are what cause gay kids to kill themselves.

[toby843]

Originally Posted by stonedape

No, it's the negative messages about being inherently mentally/physically unnatural or diseased, uselessness of life if you don't have a wife, etc, as were just expressed by ElProximo. Again, don't know if ElProximo's a minority view in the UK, but he'd be in great company in the US. However celebrated you perceive homosexuality, why would anyone choose to be in a minority if they could be "normal"?

Ok well I hope my views aren't seen as negative, I'm in it for the discussion.
So the AIDS statistics add up I'm afraid but a stereotypical view is something we should avoid in every avenue of life. We are all different with different values and beliefs etc.
I guess your point about why would anyone choose to be a minority etc is saying there is no choice in homosexuality? I would disagree strongly with that, but I fear we're getting off the point of Dave being allowed his religous view. So I would suggest we all agree to disagree and enjoy the fact we've had a fun and healthy debate and call it a day there?

[Lex]

Originally Posted by doughnut8

I can not stand his FAKE sincerity and his open disgust at minorities like gay people. I say send him a message and he can stick his vile agenda and get him OUT NOW! Call: 09011 323 004

I personally would like to see Dave evicted,(after jj1+jj2+mario), but for the reason that he is a manipulative, duplicitus full-on gameplayer!...But, in no way do I believe that he is homophobic!..imo, Rasputin has many faults!...but that's not one of them!