I don't understand how it can be so hard to answer a simple question.

Stop bringing logic into the equation.

This question is about YOU. IF YOU were sinful because you were attracted to women, could you, in all honesty, refrain from it?

This has nothing to do with the natural way of life or anything like it. If those features are too distracting, then just imagine the men breed with men to procreate, and women were vestigial or something.

OH and as per the masturbation. You masturbate. It is a sin. You do it anyway. The point is, you are DRIVEN to do something. It is NOT a choice, IS IT? You are a sinner and have Z-Z-Z-ZERO right to call ANYONE ELSE a sinner, specifically gays. BECAUSE YOU YOURSELF CANNOT CONTROL YOUR OWN SEXUAL URGES.

Actually, i only made the comment on the fact that something was harmful and gave a reason why it was harmful. I didn`t base that reason on what i said before. The reason is already known and implicit: being outside of God.
What i did later was make explicit it once more what consequence resulted from a sin and made a simple (common sense) comment about that aspect of a sin.
Basically: a sin harms people. Or you can say it backwards, like you did: a given action harms people because it is a sin.

I wasn`t the one what joined together both ways to view a situation. You were the one.

I think it's best we either get this thread back on track or lock it...because This discussion on homosexuality as a sin is...a waste of time. Basically, we have three schools of thought:

1 - Homosexual acts are sinful, says so in the bible
2 - God made homosexuals, we must accept them for who they are
3 - Science says we should be ourselves, not doing so is harmful to our mental and physical wellbeing

Being homosexual and acting on it is not harmful. end of discussion. the only thing hurt by homosexuality is the sensitive feelings of overbearing religious zealots. It does not 'harm' the institution of marriage. it does not do any physical or mental harm to people, in fact it can be a more intelligent choice due to the fact that overpopulation is a real problem and we could use more gay people not making babies. There is really only one anti-gay argument, and that's God's word, which frankly (as per the thread topic) really has no place in dictating this kind of social interaction in today's modern world when science and rationale understand a LOT more about the human condition. That's all that needs to be said on the matter.

Masturbation in moderation has also been proven to be good for your health (reduces stress, helps you to understand your body better which leads to better sexual health, etc). No idea why that's considered wrong anymore.

The whole "Contraceptives=evil" is another reason why the church's influence needs to be taken out of society. Condoms help to stop the spread of STI's and parasites (babies), which we really need less of. Intelligence and knowledge are always more effective forms of sexual education than forced abstinence. Science proved it.

This whole equality thing is disgusting. While it's nice that PAdib is able to present his view in a much more rational and logical way now, the fact that he seems to assume women 'have their place' is nothing short of reprehensible, and such views are not acceptable in this modern world. I don't know if this is religion guiding your ignorance or plain old chauvanism, but it needs to go.

These are all great examples of how religion's influence needs to be abolished. Inequality, sexual prejudice, contraceptive hatred, and biological ignorance are all values initiated and perpetuated by the church and the overzealous nannies that feel the need to butt their nose in other people's business. I'd like to pretend the church is all about acceptance and mutual support (in some cases it is), but there's a lot of this to go with it. We can have kindness and acceptance without God, but there's no scientific studies saying that masturbation is gonna kill you, or that being homosexual is a path to debauchery and suffering. Only god pushes those back-woods beliefs.

In short: Religion causes pretty much every war we have ever had... It's funny because the gods we worship don't even exist! We call the Greek gods a MYTH, but if you were alive back then you would had believed in them. The gods of today are just more boring versions of the more creative ones we had years ago. Zeus & Odin = our god running away screaming!

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. First of all, the ideea that we are all bisexual is a myth. Second of all, if genetic makeup influences our sexuality, then we are not all bisexual. Third of all, comparing homosexuality to a birth defect? Really?! Fourth of all, exorcism? Realy?!

That's not a reason. And if something beneficial is 'outside of god', then I don't think people should care much for what is 'of god'. 

I have nothing to prove wrong. It already is wrong. Homosexuality is not harmful from an areligious POV. A hypothetical situation is irrelevant when it's already proven wrong. Actually, I don't even see the point of your example. You yourself said that you linked homosexuality and alcoholism 'in sin only', but since you failed to link them from a scientific POV you've basically accomplished nothing, as someone who is not religious would find no value in such a comparison.

Also, you oversimplify the 'overcoming' part, as homosexuality and alcoholism are two totally different things. Alcoholism is the addiction to a substance, while homosexuality is a sexual oritentation and an inherent characteristic of a human being. The first is harmful, while the second is beneficial to the individual who has the feature. 'Overcoming' homosexuality is a distructive for a homosexuality as being an alcoholic. There's a huge problem to how you christians oversimplify the concept of sin to be able to add all sorts of things in the category.

You are a hypocrite because you agree with the Bible when it exhaults you (e.g. heterosexuality is OK), but admit that you'd disagree with it if it condemned you (e.g. heterosexuality is a sin). If it were such a book filled with wisdom, then you'd have to accept what is written in it. You've just shown that you don't believe in the Bible for any logical reasons, and you don't consider homosexuality to be wrong for any logical reasons, you just don't like it because it's something you're not, and you like the Bible because it's tailored to suit people like you, and legitimate the fact that you're the right type of person (i.e. dominant class). And of course if you're the 'right' type of person, there has to be a 'wrong' type of person (in this particular case the homosexual) that you can pick on to make yourslef feel mighty and righteous. When you said It is contrary to every fibre of reason and conviction I have irrespective of scripture, you basically said it all.

Your behaviour towards homosexuals is disgusting. And trust me, you are a homophobe regardless of how much you deny it.

Just so people know:

Being openminded doesn't mean you accept theories, ideals, and people regardless of whether they agree with your or not, Being openminded means not making up your mind before being exposed to the facts or people in question. Seeing things and making a decision based on that but thinking something is wrong or despicable is not closeminded. Stop saying it is.

@padib:

If you can't exhibit tolerance towards views that differ from yours, how can you expect the same.

Sorry, this little trick doesn't work on me. Tolerating intolerance is counter-productive.

Where in my post did I insult anybody?

Read your posts. Imagine that you're a woman. Or, if that's too much for for ya, imagine a woman saying the roles are reversed in the traditional society you love so much.

Not willing to take the time to understand me, you shun me and barely listen to the words I utter.

I know enough about you to know I'm acting appropriately towards you.

That's not what you live for, and that is something I know. Why are you behaving by it?

I assume there's a typo in that question?

If I do, then it's up to you to guide me in that direction. If you have something I lack or don't see, it's up to you to enlighten me.

I don't usually do that. Becuase it's my belief that if people can't 'enlighten' themselves, they're not worth 'saving'.

 Somewhat.

Aha, interesting. You should talk about this with a psychiatrist.

Would you be as prone to find excitement if a woman told you one of the reasons she is so opposed to chauvinism is because she was slapped and treated with contempt as a younger woman, simply because of her sex or physical state?

... You are aware that chauvinism is a bad thing, right? What you just asked me is the equivalent of saying 'would you be as prone to find excitement if a black man told you he finds white supremacy a bad thing because he was whipped when he was younger'. And sorry, but your desire to 'get back' at women and make them 'know their place', because you got beat up by a girl is unhealthy, and a little pathetic (a psychiatrist would be more tactful than I am right now, so you should really see one).

Why act differently with men?

What are you exactly, a true hypocrite, or simply purely insensitive to men? Or are you just on some sort of quest with a hidden agenda to push feminism and homosexuality wherever you have a chance, no matter what, and actually care little to nothing about people? I'm asking because I really am confused.

I'm not. I know for a fact that you did not experience persecution for being a male. The fact that you compare your two sisters picking on you with the type of chauvinistic treatment women usually recive from men is quite absurd. I'm all for equality, and individual men and women defining whatever 'place' in society they want for themselves.