philosophyconscious wrote: "All he did to counter the end of society argument was attack the catholic priest and say that society would end also if the world was full of catholic priests. Which is true. Doesn't change the fact that the same thing would happen if homosexuals ruled the earth."

I think you missed the point.  The point is, if the earth was filled with any one kind of person, it would "end."  If the population was entirely female, that'd be it.  All Catholic priests?  Done.  If everyone were gay, some say the world would "end."

He's pointing out that such an "argument" is stupid.  Just because a world full of Catholic priests would "end society" doesn't make Catholic priests bad.  Gay people, and those who support their striving for equal rights, have no intention of "making the whole world gay."  The "end of society" argument is one of the worst "arguments" anti-gay bigots have.

Incidentally, if the entire world were gay, society wouldn't end.  Since we'd still have a roughly 50/50 split of males and females, and the ability to reproduce by artificial insemination, humanity could exist indefinitely even if we were suddenly all homosexual.

[I think you missed the point.  The point is, if the earth was filled with any one kind of person, it would "end."  If the population was entirely female, that'd be it.  All Catholic priests?  Done.  If everyone were gay, some say the world would "end."

He's pointing out that such an "argument" is stupid.  Just because a world full of Catholic priests would "end society" doesn't make Catholic priests bad.  Gay people, and those who support their striving for equal rights, have no intention of "making the whole world gay."  The "end of society" argument is one of the worst "arguments" anti-gay bigots have.

Incidentally, if the entire world were gay, society wouldn't end.  Since we'd still have a roughly 50/50 split of males and females, and the ability to reproduce by artificial insemination, humanity could exist indefinitely even if we were suddenly all homosexual.]

1. I did get the point and, frankly, I wouldn't mind if we got rid of all the priests in the world, being atheist and all. But getting rid of all females would be ridiculous because without them we could not reproduce, plus it is not a choice whether to be female or male. It is a choice to be gay or a priest. All humans were pre-programmed with the desire for heterosexual sex and interaction so that mammals would be able to reproduce and survive as a species. If an animal has any desire for the same sex it has to be a choice or something wrong with the wiring of it's mind.

2. I do see the fact that if all the people in the world were priests that it would be the end of society as being a good reason to see priests in a negative light. Removing sex from your lifestyle can do some unnatural things to a man, like make him want to feel on little boys. : ) I think I know that homosexuals aren't trying to take over the world you silly goose. lol

3. I thought I mentioned this but I'll say it again in case you didn't get the point. The argument goes from the beginning of the human race. We are considering that everyone has been gay since the first human walked on earth. We wouldn't even of had time to invent artificial insemination. Got it?

I am confused on whether on not homosexuality is genetic or not. That is the true debate in my opinion. If gays are born gay, meaning that the first human was gay or had a recessive gay gene, which I cannot find any studies that support this issue, then by human nature I understand why we would have to allow homosexuality. However, as states, no studies have been shown to say there is a gay gene.

The whole "personal, love, doesn't affect me" arguement is also bullshit. Things like suicide and sodomy and incest are all personal matters that deal with love and would never affect me. However, those are all deemed illegal. Double standard, afraid so.

Gay gene research debunked.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

philosophyconscious wrote, "...I wouldn't mind if we got rid of all the priests in the world..."

I probly wouldn't, either.  But our dislike of the priesthood doesn't mean that saying "if everybody were priests, the species would end" is a legitimate argument.  Nor does it make "if everybody had been priests at the beginning of the race, the race would have failed" a legitimate argument.

You also wrote, "It is a choice to be gay..."

That's a nice assertion.  Care to offer any hard evidence or science to back it up?  "It's a choice to be left-handed."  Suuurre.

You also wrote, "All humans were pre-programmed with the desire for heterosexual sex and interaction so that mammals would be able to reproduce and survive as a species..."

Mammals are not a species, and it is odd that you would suggest that mankind's ability to desire heterosexual sex is of such prime importance to all mammals.

You also wrote, "If an animal has any desire for the same sex it has to be a choice or something wrong with the wiring of it's [sic] mind."

It has to be?  You sound so certain, but I'm curious if you can offer any research that supports your conclusions.  I'm curious what you make of all of the observed instances of homosexuality that occur in the animal kingdom, and if you can provide links to any research that proves those animals are "choosing" to act gay, or that such animals suffer from some sort of brain damage.

You also wrote, "I do see the fact that if all the people in the world were priests that it would be the end of society as being a good reason to see priests in a negative light."

That's ridiculous.  If all people in the world were college professors, that would be the end of society.  This does not work as a good reason to see college profs in a negative light.  Insert whatever kind of person you want.  That line of "reasoning" is blatantly stupid.

You then wrote, "Removing sex from your lifestyle can do some unnatural things to a man, like make him want to feel on little boys."

This is a legitimate line of inquiry into the validity and value of the priesthood.  You'll hear no objection from me if you say that unnecessary and unreasonable commitment to celibacy is stupid, and very dangerous. 

Suprise! Probably didn't expect to be hearing from me. But, I decided to check my Xanga earlier today, I even made a post. I'm not planning a comeback or anything, just saying hi for "old-time's sake" or whatever you want to call it. Then, I saw this post, rather intersting.

Let me just say this:

The Bible says that God created man and woman, that means that God did not create man to be gay. Also, I have never heard of anyone that has found a "gay gene." This makes it a choice.

Now, as to whether or not it is morally right: I would say that it is not. Why? Because men and woman were obviously created to be together.

However, I strongly believe that homosexuals should not be persecuted.

For Christians to persecute any people for any reason is wrong. Jesus' message was to love ALL people, and I believe that homosexuals would fall under that category of "people." For anyone that has ever read Romans 12 verses 9-21, it is clear that Christians should not show hate toward others and live in peace.

Although I do not think that homosexuality is right, it is not my place to judge.

Derek Timothy, I don't need any kind of evidence or scientific proof to tell me that homosexuality ain't right. That's just you dude.