h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i am not gay,nor have i ever had a homosexual thought or yearning. i would like to apologize if i have offended you ,rocket man, as my friend josh keeps telling me i get too emotional in my debates. my goal was never to offend any one,but to simply make a statement of my opinion. if i had realized that you were gay i would have tried to be less hateful sounding. i admit i don't like gays much and i do think it is wrong but i shouldn't have said some of the things i have said.
i live in po-dunk oklahoma and i just don't think about bumping into a gay person at any time.

two bit i have just read post 12 and your comments are duely noted and i shall remove that comment immediatly.





thank you for your comments.

No problem.

Have any of you considered that, though some homosexuals claim that they were emotionally dissatisfied with their lives because they were living in secrecy, the opposite may be true? A lot of homosexuals have no real desire to be gay; they are pressured into it. Then, they feel obligated to pretend to be homosexuals because they are told it is their sexual "orientation", not preference. This is the real closet. Homosexuality is often merely a conspiracy of heterosexuals who do not wish to offend other homosexuals. I've seen this happen before, and I think it is ignored by society to an alarming extent. It saddens me to see people living as homosexuals because of peer pressure rather than living as they chose.

"So all heterosexuals have a contempt for members of their own sex, do they?"

Clever, but I think you know that's a bad analogy. Heterosexuals accept their natural, useful sexuality. Furthermore, one does not have to meet many homosexuals to realize that homosexuals are not born, but made. Virtually all come from non-nuclear families, most without a parent of their own sex. They all have very traumatic childhoods, usually involving a lot of persecution. When I say persecution, I do not nessicarily refer to homosexuality-related teasing. Often, if a heterosexual child is teased and tormented with accusations of homosexuality, he will start to believe them.

You must also understand that Leviticus was the law of the ancient Israelites, not a definition of what is sinful and what is not. Leviticus is certainly not the only place in the Bible that condemns homsexuality, either. The apostle Paul was always very adamant in his rebukes of homosexuality, and even sexual immorality in general. There are plenty of stories in they Bible that display just how much damage homosexuality can do to a person and those around him or her.

"No offense, but your comments on homosexuals hardly seem respectful."

You can respect someone and disapprove of them at the same time. There is nothing wrong with critisizing something you don't like, but there is a problem with killing it (a priniple that can apply not just to homosexuality, but to all sorts of things, things like abortion.)

>You can respect someone and disapprove of them at the same time.

I agree. I don't like christanity, but that doesn't mean that I can't get along with them. My own mother became one in the early 90s. It's been a little difficult at times. She occasionally tries recruit me. I have to firmly tell that I don't mind what she does with her friends, but I don't want to hear about it.

>A lot of homosexuals have no real desire to be gay; they are pressured into it. Then, they feel obligated to pretend to be homosexuals because they are told it is their sexual "orientation", not preference.



This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. You mean there are gay people out there who force other people to be gay? I've never met a homosexual who cared who I slept with.

good form josh, not too long ago my cousin told me about his "sexual prefrence" and it wasn't the fact that he chose to tell me that frightened me,it was the fact that he told me when we were alone on a campout. i know its homophobic but the whole weekend i was afraid he might try to pull the "one eyed monster" on me. it was just recently that i thought of th fact that i am safe. i mean i wouldn't try to get with one of my female cousins if we were alin so why should i be afraid of him? two bit i am going to take your advice and writ an article on homophobia and submit it for peer review.

I suggested what?

Homophobia - What are you going to say about it?

Caleb -
<>

What? Where have I said on this thread, indeed on the whole of h2g2, that I am gay? Although I wouldn't normally bring my own sexuality into an online debate, I'm not gay. Please do not make unfounded accusations.

<>

There are millions of homosexuals in the world, have you met all of them?

Josh-
<>
While this may be true, i don't see what its relevance to homosexuality is. Being in a loving relationship with a member of the same sex, is in my opinion, useful. Surely you're not suggesting that the only useful role of a human is to parent as many children as possible? Suppressing one's feelings of homosexuality to create a 'forced' heterosexual is hardly 'natural'.

<>

If this is a bad analogy, then what makes yours any better? All i've done is change the word 'homosexual'.

<>

But you just said that Leviticus was "the law of the ancient Israelites, not a definition of what is sinful and what is not". What sets apart the other 200 year old irrelvancies as being any better?

<>

Another generalisation. This may be just your opinion, but you didn't phrase it that way. Such 'blanket statements' hardly provide a credible argument.

it says in genisis that this is the reason that god gave us the power of sex you donnt see any other animals,with the exceptian of dolphans, humping out side of mateing. but the lord gave us the gift of lust wich should be used only for the one who you have chosen to be your "mate" if you will.

oh by the way,i'm sorry i supose the statements you made had somewhere gotten me off track and i thought that you were gay, i see that i was wrong. you just suport it blindly.





one more thing rocket man................do know jesus christ as your savior?

I don't know that anyone is supporting it blindly. I don't think we care who other people have sex with as long as they consent. (I hope I'm not putting inaccurate words in your mouth Rocket Man.)

You've already said that you wanted to have sex, but do you feel you should wait until you're ready to mate? Should we allow people to have sex without the goal of procreating? Is the use of birth control thwarting the will of God as expressed in Genisis? Does the Catholic Church's acceptance of the rythym method promote sin?

Actually, other animals do have sex for purposes other than procreation. This includes homosexuality.

Josh, you're missing my point...

Leviticus may well have been the Israelite's law, but it is part of the Canon of Scripture, the Word of God, as laid down in the Bible. You believe that the Bible is the authoritive Word of God? Then Leviticus is the Word of God, too. The practice of picking and choosing which bits you obey and which you don't is one of the most difficult areas of Bible study.

For example; you quote Paul, but doesn't Paul also talk of men keeping their hair short and women being silent in church and keeping their heads covered. Yes, these might well have been cultural instructions specific to the people Paul was writing to, but I know of several churches who make women wear hats, and the ordination of women is still a massive controversy in the UK. Which rules are still relevant, and which are not? There is no hard and fast rule about this; it's all down to interpretation. So... are you prepared to ostracise an entire section of society purely on a question of interpretation? That's a little glib, don't you think? I would suggest that the correct thing to do would be to give homosexuals the benefit of any doubt that exists.

I was active in the UK Methodist Church in the early 90s. The Methodist Council wanted all its churches to re-examine their attitudes to homosexuality and have an honest discussion about it before reporting back their beliefs to the Council. What blind bigotry did I see in those weeks!! People did not study, they did not re-examine, and they did not honestly discuss. They quoted Leviticus and harped on about their children being at risk. Many of them turned up to cast their vote without even bothering to attend the discussion groups and related Bible studies. They believed they were right, and that was that. I hate it when people do that...

...The Church believed it was right when it went on the Crusades. It believed it was right when it established the Inquisition. It believed it was right at the Salem Witch Trials. It believed it was right when it massacred Jews at Clifford's Tower and elsewhere.
IT WAS WRONG.

The Church has historically made many painful mistakes when it has overlaid its own prejudice onto its interpretation of the Bible. I suggest to you that it is making another mistake with homosexuality.

<>

But you said 'Sex - yes please' (or something along those lines) on your personal space, didn't you? I find your argument very hypocritical, and hard to believe, when you've previously contradicted it.

<>

Again, please don't make unfounded insults. Having an opinion is hardly "blindly" supporting something. Please don't accuse me of "blindly" supporting a cause when the majority of your argument is made up of Biblical quotations. What justification can you provide for your accusation?

<>

I don't really see why this is relevant. Telling you about my religion would hardly make you approach me objectively. It's personal information about myself, and has no real relevance towards this discussion about homosexuality.

Two Bit-
No you weren't putting words in my mouth (you said it better than I could), but I do agree with you

Geoff's BLACK side-

"doesn't Paul also talk of men keeping their hair short and women being silent in church and keeping their heads covered."

There is a passage in one of his letters that says this, but the authenticity is dubious. Many earlier copies of the letter do not include this passage. This was probably added by church officials at a later time. This is in contrast to Paul's repeated condemnation of sexual immorality.

"Suppressing one's feelings of homosexuality to create a 'forced' heterosexual is hardly 'natural'."

I guess surpressing urges to murder people or rape three year olds is unnatural as well. I realize my examples are nonconsentual, but my point is, just because we have an urge to do something doesn't make it right.

"Surely you're not suggesting that the only useful role of a human is to parent as many children as possible"

Certainly not. But homosexuality is only useful to those who participate in it. A heterosexual relationship produces children who benefit from that relationship. Homosexuality is selfishly hoarding your sexual gifts, not allowing them to benefit the next generation. Of course, there are heterosexual couples with no children. What's different about them? There is more to sex that kids. However, this involves a celebration of the opposite sex, pleasure in the way God intended. Homosexuality doesn't fulfill that either.

You really don't think that there are homosexuals who do not wish to be homosexuals? I know people who were just like that.

Josh, your rejection of Paul's teachings as laid out in the Bible strikes me as inconsistent.

Is the Bible the Word of God? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then acceptance or denial of Paul's teachings is a matter of interpretation. Once that premise is accepted, then Leviticus's rules are also a matter of interpretation, and Paul's teachings themselves are also up for grabs.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either believe and obey the Bible or explain it away. I object to obeying the bits you like and explaining away the bits you don't like. That just doesn't cut any ice, and it undermines your entire morality.

<>

I think you should have chosen some better examples here. You cannot compare a loving relatiosnhip with rape and murder. As you said yourself, rape and murder are non-consentual. I don't see why you think that loving someone is so unnatural. What's wrong about following an urge to love someone in the same way as a heterosexual partner? My guess is that you don't really know, so are down to using Biblical quotations and poor examples which are completely irrelevant.

<>

But you don't start loving someone to be useful, do you? There is much more to a relationship than sex and offspring.

<>

But this doesn't make a homosexual relationship wrong. Both partners will benefit from it.

<>

Once again, there is more to a relationship than sex and offspring. Oh but i forgot, you just contradicted yourself - "There is more to sex that kids". Choosing whether or not to procreate is hardly selfish, it is merely personal preference.

<>

What's wrong with a celebration of the same sex? Even so, there are many homosexuals with many religions, so saying "the way God intended" hardly applies.

I'm sure there are homosexuals who do not want to be homosexuals. However, I could say exactly the same about straight people. This reasoning doesn't apply to every member of either group, but a few individuals. It is, therefore, not a valid argument against being gay.

In fact, I think this point is so fundamental that I'll say it again.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then it should be obeyed. This includes the Leviticus's instructions about 2 types of cloth and Paul's orders about female silence & headgear. If any or all of these can be explained away as "cultural" or "not relevant", then the potential exists for other passages to be explained away. Once this element of doubt is allowed, then homosexuals surely must be given the benefit of that doubt.

Surely you can't pick and choose who to ostracise? Homosexuals and talkative womenwith no headgear. It's all the same if you take the Bible literally. Object to one; object to both. You don't have the right to pick & choose

Oops. Simulpost with the Rocket Man. Ah well

<>

perhaps i fouxposed here. what was ment is that i hate the sin not the sinner.


two bit
i dissagree animals hump to procreate they hump the same sex because they think it is the oppisite sex. it's not homosexuality, it's stupidity.



again a fouxpos. what i should have said is what josh did say and so on.
i admit what i said was wrong. the truth is that i beleive that sex is a butiful thing that takes place between a man and a woman in a totaly monogomous reltionship,preferably marrage. i beleive homosexuality as well as one night stands is abusive of the gift of sex the lord has given to us. truthfuly its not the sex that i long for but the relationship. what was said was something a 16 year old says to impress his friends. if i told my friends the way i feel about relationships(with the exception of josh who feels the same way)i would face all sorts of ridicule.

(can i just quickly butt in and say that we humans and animals have sex because it is really, really good fun and not because of some higher, noble idea of "procreation of the species" or some other ridiculous non-existant notion. i'm sure that a rabbit or a sheep cannot think beyond the next afternoon, never mind a few generations. the same can be said of teenage humans. thank you, i'll try to be quiet again, even though some bigotted and frankly dum...*muffled struggle*...*clunk*)