NationStates Jolt Archive

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] " :mad: Being GAY is an absolute disgrace" is not a thread title that accurately reflects your actual opinion. [/modedit]

I reckon that title will rope the people in.....hehe

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] Yes, it does rope people in, Moderators included. Please don't make inflammatory thread titles just to get attention. Thank you for your cooperation. [/modedit]

Anyway I reckon that to be gay is a choice that anyone makes with no harm to others and so it's completely up to them.
However I see increasingly in the US the religious right is desperate to end gay rights. Of course they back this up via the bible and so forth, but what always gets me is the way in which the bible just as much dispises meaningless sex and gambling, and yet you don't see massive parades calling for the closing of Las Vegas or the passing of laws discrediting sex before marriage.
Basically it's a case of double standards within religion, and it is my conclusion that the religious right in fact don't like gays not because it is what God says, but it's because what their own prejudice says.
I think it's a prime example of what John Stuart Mill argues as laws being made by 'the likings and dislikings' of society, instead of rationality.

I reckon that title will rope the people in.....hehe
It caught me.

Yay for being gay! Yay for not being gay! Yay for being bi or asexual! Yay for everyone, even the dumb people! :fluffle:

I hope this isn't construed as "in before the lock", but I think it's fair to warn you that the moderators have ruled multiple times in the past that using obvious trolling titles for threads in order to get attention is a no no.

In my view religious beliefs should never be the basis for a law. If anti-gay christians want to they can go and start a "straight-only" colony, but they certainly shouldn't be trying to enforce their religion through law.

I reckon that title will rope the people in.....hehe

Anyway I reckon that to be gay is a choice that anyone makes with no harm to others and so it's completely up to them.
However I see increasingly in the US the religious right is desperate to end gay rights. Of course they back this up via the bible and so forth, but what always gets me is the way in which the bible just as much dispises meaningless sex and gambling, and yet you don't see massive parades calling for the closing of Las Vegas or the passing of laws discrediting sex before marriage.
Basically it's a case of double standards within religion, and it is my conclusion that the religious right in fact don't like gays not because it is what God says, but it's because what their own prejudice says.
I think it's a prime example of what John Stuart Mill argues as laws being made by 'the likings and dislikings' of society, instead of rationality. Ummm... people 'believe' it's a choice to clear the way for such good moralistic, divisive idiocy.

Ibtl :d

ooh well sorry admin people :(
But anyway, the religious argument I've heard is that the US was founded as Christian thus it should be a completely Christian nation, despite the obvious trend of secularization that you yanks of always had.


http://www.falangist.us <---- go to 'political arena' to discuss with these christian anti-gay anti-muslim nuts

ooh well sorry admin people :(
But anyway, the religious argument I've heard is that the US was founded as Christian thus it should be a completely Christian nation, despite the obvious trend of secularization that you yanks of always had.


http://www.falangist.us <---- go to 'political arena' to discuss with these christian anti-gay anti-muslim nuts
I thought the US believed strongly in the separation of church and state?

you and your snareing titles :mad:

sucseesful flame on the Us , anti gay muslim sit :D

ooh well sorry admin people :(
But anyway, the religious argument I've heard is that the US was founded as Christian thus it should be a completely Christian nation, despite the obvious trend of secularization that you yanks of always had.


http://www.falangist.us <---- go to 'political arena' to discuss with these christian anti-gay anti-muslim nuts


If anything, it was founded as a nation of free choice, not of "christian morals". Don't buy into the bullshit put out by religious idiots.

In my view religious beliefs should never be the basis for a law. If anti-gay christians want to they can go and start a "straight-only" colony, but they certainly shouldn't be trying to enforce their religion through law.

This is an interesting turn of events. Prior to the "sexual revolution", the homosexual practicers were kept "in a closet".

Now.. it's whoever happens to disagree with them that gets locked away?


What's the big deal here - if the majority of the people vote against legalizing the homosexual practices, then it IS what the people want - therefore, you aught not worry about it.

The M0ds will be sure to change this title's topic, that is for sure

Meh, you can't stop people from doing what they want in their own bedrooms. Even though I'm a Christian and I'm against gay marriage and all, I still don't think the government should be able to dictate what goes on in your bedroom. I don't really mind homosexuals at all, a lot of them are nice and decent people. But I can't stand it when they try to press the issue. I know this guy who's gay, and all he ever talks about is his gay experiences, how gays are soo opressed, and it's just plain annoying. So, that's my thing with gays. As long as they don't A) Press the issue and B) Don't hit on me, I'm generally nice to them.

This is an interesting turn of events. Prior to the "sexual revolution", the homosexual practicers were kept "in a closet".

Now.. it's whoever happens to disagree with them that gets locked away?


What's the big deal here - if the majority of the people vote against legalizing the homosexual practices, then it IS what the people want - therefore, you aught not worry about it.


This is exactly what's wrong with a Democracy. Its nature is to fuck over the little guy, and that is *not* a good thing.

I wish people would just let people be gay, strait, bi , or whatever. Why is there such blind prejudice in the world? :(

This is an interesting turn of events. Prior to the "sexual revolution", the homosexual practicers were kept "in a closet".

Now.. it's whoever happens to disagree with them that gets locked away?


What's the big deal here - if the majority of the people vote against legalizing the homosexual practices, then it IS what the people want - therefore, you aught not worry about it.

Because it isn't always what the majority wants. The majority doesn't get to squelch the rights of the minority just because they can.

This is exactly what's wrong with a Democracy. Its nature is to fuck over the little guy, and that is *not* a good thing.

No, it's nature is to protect the people and project their views. No one wants to "screw over" the little guy.

I thought the US believed strongly in the separation of church and state?
supposedly, but many conservatives say that we are "based on Judeo-Christian values" unfortunately.

homosexuality isnt a choice. think about. who randomly decided that they want to reverse their hormones and start having sex with the same gender? its not possible to reverse sexuality, one of the strongest urges in animal nature.

Also homosexuality has been found in my animals, and if something still isn't natural even if happens in nature, we're living in a screwed up world.

What's the big deal here - if the majority of the people vote against legalizing the homosexual practices, then it IS what the people want - therefore, you aught not worry about it.
It's that the will of the people is not always correct. That's why we have the constitution and such. Majority =/= correctness

No, it's nature is to protect the people and project their views. No one wants to "screw over" the little guy.


Oh, is that so? Then how about the over-oppressive Church?

The M0ds will be sure to change this title's topic, that is for sure

Really?
I guess it is rather offensive. At least I think it is. It caught my attention, though.

A question to any teenager Americans is; do you that many religious people?

It would seem to me via my own experience that religion itself is on a downhill trend. I can't say I know more than 2 or 3 practising religious people my age (17) out of a good few hundred.
Maybe in the UK its cos we all go bible bashing later on in life when we're nearer to kicking the bucket.

Oh, is that so? Then how about the over-oppressive Church?

The church is not over-opressive. They just want to keep marriage the way it was supposed to be. I don't have a problem with gays setting up their own union wher ethey have all the rights a married couple has. No one wants to deny them their rights, they deserve their rights just as we do.

No, it's nature is to protect the people and project their views. No one wants to "screw over" the little guy.
Wrong.
In a pure democracy, that isn't the case. In a pure democracy, nothing is protected, whatever the majority wants is law. At times, the majority have wanted to screw people over, and in a pure democracy, they would be able to do just that.


Roach-Busters said something awesome about why we aren't a democracy, we are a republic, but I can't seem to find it. Damn, I was gonna quote him.

Wrong.
In a pure democracy, that isn't the case. In a pure democracy, nothing is protected, whatever the majority wants is law. At times, the majority have wanted to screw people over, and in a pure democracy, they would be able to do just that.


Roach-Busters said something awesome about why we aren't a democracy, we are a republic, but I can't seem to find it. Damn, I was gonna quote him.

I know. The U.S. is a a democratic republic. In a true democracy, everyone would make all the laws, not just congress. If we had a true democracy the chances that we'd vote for a ban on gay marriage is pretty high.

I know. The U.S. is a a democratic republic. In a true democracy, everyone would make all the laws, not just congress. If we had a true democracy the chances that we'd vote for a ban on gay marriage is pretty high.

And that's why we don't have a democracy, because at any point the majority could decide they wanted to strip rights away from the minority and there would be nothing the minority could do about it.

I know. The U.S. is a a democratic republic. In a true democracy, everyone would make all the laws, not just congress. If we had a true democracy the chances that we'd vote for a ban on gay marriage is pretty high.


And we'd have had segregation until the late 1970's (the South would still have it), we'd have anti-gay laws almost everywhere, and who knows what other bullshit.

So, that's my thing with gays. As long as they don't A) Press the issue and B) Don't hit on me, I'm generally nice to them.I think it's fair enough to press the issue. I'd be pretty pissed off if the government declared that I could never marry.

Don't know how old you are, but imagine knowing you would never be allowed to marry your (future?) girlfriend. Ever.

Wrong.
In a pure democracy, that isn't the case. In a pure democracy, nothing is protected, whatever the majority wants is law. At times, the majority have wanted to screw people over, and in a pure democracy, they would be able to do just that.

true. without regulation, a pure democracy just swings wichever way is popular among the people.

The church is not over-opressive. They just want to keep marriage the way it was supposed to be. I don't have a problem with gays setting up their own union wher ethey have all the rights a married couple has. No one wants to deny them their rights, they deserve their rights just as we do.


They're not over-oppresive? Then why is it that these televangelst fuckers keep talking about wanting to strip the rights of homosexuals and other minorities? And why is it that they ALWAYS try to but into government affairs?

No one wants to deny them their rights, huh? Get a grip on reality.

the new name sums it all up, but this a lot less penache I feel

true. without regulation, a pure democracy just swings wichever way is popular among the people.


And what's popular isn't always good. Ashlee Simpson is popular, but does that mean she's good? Fuck no!

This is an interesting turn of events. Prior to the "sexual revolution", the homosexual practicers were kept "in a closet".

Now.. it's whoever happens to disagree with them that gets locked away?
S/he isn't saying that-they are saying that if you want to ban homosexuality you'll need to go some place else because restricting rights because you find it "oogey" isn't the way we do things. We are not a theocracy. However, as long as you are not advocating beating the hell out of homosexuals you still have the right to spout all the stupid shit you want. Just remember that people have the same freedom to argue back.


What's the big deal here - if the majority of the people vote against legalizing the homosexual practices, then it IS what the people want - therefore, you aught not worry about it.
That's called tyranny of the majority. The trap is that you really can't be free and in a pure democracy because the majority can run ripshod over the minority. So we have protections-a constitution, that prevents tyranny of the majority.

Now this is working against you now, but remember if you want tyranny of the majority California suddenly gets A LOT more sway in how things go. As a Californian I'm cool with that, but are you?

The church is not over-opressive. They just want to keep marriage the way it was supposed to be. I don't have a problem with gays setting up their own union wher ethey have all the rights a married couple has. No one wants to deny them their rights, they deserve their rights just as we do.


I think we should make a clear separation between the religious marrigae and the legal thing. why shouldn't gays be allowed ot found a family before the law? They don't need to marry in a church to do that. Let the church do their thing but please make them stay out of the political life and decisions. They had enough time to sow what they can do in Europe in the past and the started things like a couple of crusades and inqusition among others. The movie Dogma is a comedy but it got it pretty good:

"Leave it to the Catholics to destroy existence."

I reckon that title will rope the people in.....hehe

Anyway I reckon that to be gay is a choice that anyone makes with no harm to others and so it's completely up to them.
However I see increasingly in the US the religious right is desperate to end gay rights. Of course they back this up via the bible and so forth, but what always gets me is the way in which the bible just as much dispises meaningless sex and gambling, and yet you don't see massive parades calling for the closing of Las Vegas or the passing of laws discrediting sex before marriage.
Basically it's a case of double standards within religion, and it is my conclusion that the religious right in fact don't like gays not because it is what God says, but it's because what their own prejudice says.
I think it's a prime example of what John Stuart Mill argues as laws being made by 'the likings and dislikings' of society, instead of rationality.

Fact: The Bible was written in the sixth century.
Fact: The Bible has been edited many times by the Catholic Church.

Banning gay rights isn't religious, it's mean. There are many, many religions in the USA. Basing the entire system on it is arrogant, and really, against a lot of the Bible's supposed "laws!" Yay for hypocrisy?

Fact: Nowhere in the US constitution does it mention the word God.
Fact: In God We Trust began to be printed on the dollar bill in the McCarthy era of fear, when it was believed by the government that a fearful public brought society together.

So really, not respecting other religions goes against "do unto others as you would like them to do to you," the Bible's main preaching. Would the Christian church like the Islamic faith to oppress it, simply because it was Christian? Would the Christian church like the homosexual people of the world to oppress it, simply because it was Christian?

Anthropologically, all the Christians are doing is displaying their own sexual insecurity within their human nature - 'must get rid of homosexuality because it scares me, and I wish to prove that I am a possible mate for species furtherment' - and using the excuse of a higher power to carry out that. This is all instinctive, of course. Most will not consciously realise this.

"God" teaches us not to be jealous, or vengeful; look at the commandment that says "Don't worship anything else," and look at the plagues, and the supposed flood that Noah survived. This is also a neat place to point out that in one part of the Bible, it says to love "God." In another, it says to fear him. Hmmm.

Ain't it ironic that there are towns in a fair few states called "Buttfuck?"

And take the Heterosexist Test. Great for illustrating the above points:
http://www.mun.ca/the/attitudetest.html

And about Tyrrany of the Majority: There's a difference between "let people do what they please, because it's freedom of speech, the principle the USA was found upon," and "51% of people don't like Bob, so kill Bob."

I use Bob as an abstract noun. Sorry Bob.

They're not over-oppresive? Then why is it that these televangelst fuckers keep talking about wanting to strip the rights of homosexuals and other minorities? And why is it that they ALWAYS try to but into government affairs?

No one wants to deny them their rights, huh? Get a grip on reality.

I've got one, thanks. And no, no one wants to take their rights away. Of course, you do have nutjobs who take the bible way too literally and think that, but they are a small minority. You don't see George Bush saying that gays are evil, gays are this, take away their rights. You just don't. I'd like you to come to my church, and then afterwards, you tell me that it's opressive.

About segregation, we truly should've waited until about the 70's, which is what would have happened if we would've allowed it to occur naturally. You can't *force* people to be together. Half of the blacks didn't want to integrate, anyways. I'm not saying segreation is right it any way, though.

Anyway I reckon that to be gay is a choice that anyone makes with no harm to others and so it's completely up to them.Sorry to burst your bubble, but being gay is not a "choice." You cannot chose to be gay/bisexual; sexuality is a genetic factor in one's DNA, therefore, as it is the genes that decide if one is female or male, so it is in the genes that decide if one is gay/bi/straight.

The church is not over-opressive. They just want to keep marriage the way it was supposed to be. But who is to say what marriage is supposed to be? after all, are there not divorces because even though marriage is "supposed to be" forever, it isn't? One cannot say marriage is supposed to be just this or that, just as one cannot say if life is supposed to be just this or that.

Alright, to put it in perspective, using the Judeo-Christian teachings respectfully, God created humans and loves all of them equally, correct? God created everything perfect, making God perfect; so, therefore, saying that being gay is a disgrace would make/say that God (is) a disgrace, too, right? That would make God NOT perfect, because He obviously made a MISTAKE (gasp) by creating homosexuals. Therefore, if God made a "mistake" in this case of creating homosexuals, who's to say that He didn't make other mistakes as well?

Does anyone else think that homosexuality is hereditary? I have heard that in autopsies of gays some element of the brain is different or something, and if that's true then doesn't that prove it? (unless Lamarck's theory of evolution suddenly became reality) I know someone who is gay, and who's father is also gay, although it could very well be a coincidence.

Thank you, Fantasmic Sanity.

Anyway I reckon that to be gay is a choice that anyone makes with no harm to others and so it's completely up to them.


But it isn't a choice, really. Try forcing youself to be sexually attracted to someone sometime. It isn't possible. Either you are or your not, there is no choice about it.

This is an interesting turn of events. Prior to the "sexual revolution", the homosexual practicers were kept "in a closet".

Now.. it's whoever happens to disagree with them that gets locked away?


What's the big deal here - if the majority of the people vote against legalizing the homosexual practices, then it IS what the people want - therefore, you aught not worry about it.
so you are saying that the nazi party was fine because they had the majority?
anyway, it's not a matter of what the vote is. the united states constitution says that everyone gets the same rights. if you deny homosexuals the right to marriage/civil union that is descrimination clear and simple

so you are saying that the nazi party was fine because they had the majority?

The populace surely did not go along with said party lines, not when they realized what was going on - by then, it ceased to be democratic.

If you throw out the democratic premise/process, then it has to fall back on SOMEONE's definition of morality - in this case, as it stands today, YOUR definition of what is right/wrong is going to be propagated on a bunch of people who don't feel the same way.

In that case, how is it any worse for them to ask you to take stock in THEIR view of morality?

Does anyone else think that homosexuality is hereditary?
I don't think it's genetic, but I do think it's mostly biolgical, if not all.

@Fantastic: i would like to see a prove to you saying that being gay is genetic....sorry but that's just completely...stupid...just for a thought this would mean a person would never change his/her sexuality throughout life. but as far as i know most people don't start gay, they choose to become gay in the course of their lives.

@Synnax: You shouldn't believe everything you hear. It is nonsense to say that gays are anatomically different from straight people...

@Haloman: of yourse not everybody in the churches of this world is oppressive. but htere arem onre then enough conservative idiots who would like nothing more then clean the world off all those heretics who do not believe in their holy teachings and who do everything they can to harm minorities like gays and everybody different from their ides of religion. and unfortunately these are the people that usually make a lot of noise.

I know.
Oh, sorry about that then.

I don't think it's genetic, but I do think it's mostly biolgical, if not all.

The point of "genetic" is moot, indeed - kleptomaniacs have a "genetic code" making them predisposed to swipe stuff.

Other people have an all-consuming rage that's just born right into their psyce, making them more predisposed to flying off the handle and committing murder.

Neither of these things are acceptable.

The discsussion needs to be: "Is the homosexual lifestyle negative in effect, both to the people involved directly, and (on a much larger weight) to society in general?"

If yes, then there should be no "ifs ands or buts" about it.

If marginally so, then it should be allowed, but not "protected" (anymore than alcohol consumption and use of tobacco is protected") - ie: if it JUST harms the two involved, then it's their choice what to do.

If no, then it (the lifestyle) needs to be 100% legalized.

GOD DIDN'T INTEND FOR GAYS TO EXIST! IT's UNHOLY!

If this God hadn't intended for homosexuality to exist, then why does it? If it's unholy, why does it exist? Answer me these questions, and then come back to me with a revised reason.

@Fantastic: i would like to see a prove to you saying that being gay is genetic....sorry but that's just completely...stupid...just for a thought this would mean a person would never change his/her sexuality throughout life. but as far as i know most people don't start gay, they choose to become gay in the course of their lives.
when did you choose to be straight?

if homosexuality is a choice, then everyone must be naturally attracted to the opposite sex to allow people to make that choice

[QUOTE=Fantasmic Sanity
Alright, to put it in perspective, using the Judeo-Christian teachings respectfully, God created humans and loves all of them equally, correct? God created everything perfect, making God perfect; so, therefore, saying that being gay is a disgrace would make/say that God (is) a disgrace, too, right? That would make God NOT perfect, because He obviously made a MISTAKE (gasp) by creating homosexuals. Therefore, if God made a "mistake" in this case of creating homosexuals, who's to say that He didn't make other mistakes as well?[/QUOTE]
a wonderful point if i do say so myself

The point of "genetic" is moot, indeed - kleptomaniacs have a "genetic code" making them predisposed to swipe stuff.

Other people have an all-consuming rage that's just born right into their psyce, making them more predisposed to flying off the handle and committing murder.

Neither of these things are acceptable.

The discsussion needs to be: "Is the homosexual lifestyle negative in effect, both to the people involved directly, and (on a much larger weight) to society in general?"

Murder takes away someone's right to life. That's why it's always been illegal.

Can we do the same with taking away someone's right to be who they are? In your own logic, shouldn't that also be illegal?

Anyway I reckon that to be gay is a choice that anyone makes with no harm to others and so it's completely up to them.
However I see increasingly in the US the religious right is desperate to end gay rights. Of course they back this up via the bible and so forth, but what always gets me is the way in which the bible just as much dispises meaningless sex and gambling, and yet you don't see massive parades calling for the closing of Las Vegas or the passing of laws discrediting sex before marriage.
Basically it's a case of double standards within religion, and it is my conclusion that the religious right in fact don't like gays not because it is what God says, but it's because what their own prejudice says.
I think it's a prime example of what John Stuart Mill argues as laws being made by 'the likings and dislikings' of society, instead of rationality.

It's a question of enforcement. Christians aren't going to push for a law outlawing pre-marital sex because it would be too hard to enforce. Same thing on homosexual sex. We can enforce laws passed which ban homosexual marriage.

You might also note the large programs involved with stopping pre-marital sex. For the gambling, most churches also work more within they're own congregations to stop it because they realize that closing down Vegas is pretty much impossible right now. But they do often fight to keep places closed to gambling, especially state-run lotteries.

a wonderful point if i do say so myself

Acutally - by that reasoning, the super-anti-gay people (the ones who go on gay-murdering-rampages) are also O.K., since God created them, too.

Just because something exists in the world doesn't mean that its' sanctioned by the God we're hypothetically assuming to exist.

If this God hadn't intended for homosexuality to exist, then why does it? If it's unholy, why does it exist? Answer me these questions, and then come back to me with a revised reason.
i agree with you on this point but that is like saying if god dindt want us to kill each other then why does he allow us to

when did you choose to be straight?

if homosexuality is a choice, then everyone must be naturally attracted to the opposite sex to allow people to make that choice


look if we would know what makes us love another person we could say for a fact why some people are straight and some are gay...we do not have an answer to thisquestion yet but i refuse to believe it's anything genetic. The concept of love it's far more complex.

@Nonconfirmition: yes, why does he? one of the reasons why i choose to be an atheist.

don't you people make me post the picture of two male lions going at it like jack-hammers

Murder takes away someone's right to life. That's why it's always been illegal.

Can we do the same with taking away someone's right to be who they are? In your own logic, shouldn't that also be illegal?

Indeed - that's why my [edited] post sums it up by saying: we need to decide if it does in fact negatively affect OTHERS. If so, it's taking away from THEIR quality of life, and shouldn't be allowed.

If not, then fine.

Indeed - that's why my [edited] post sums it up by saying: we need to decide if it does in fact negatively affect OTHERS. If so, it's taking away from THEIR quality of life, and shouldn't be allowed.

If not, then fine.

erm...would be nice if it works that way...but then we would have to forbid things like capitalism, religion and fast food, too...

don't you people make me post the picture of two male lions going at it like jack-hammers

The question is not "does it occur in nature" - Infanticide and the eating of one's spouse "exists" in nature - we're not going to allow either, here in Humanity.

The question is not "does it occur in nature" - Infanticide and the eating of one's spouse "exists" in nature - we're not going to allow either, here in Humanity.

well if religion is out and nature is out, what possible reason can you have against it?

erm...would be nice if it works that way...but then we would have to forbid things like capitalism, religion and fast food, too...

Incorrect. Religion is sampled by a person, and affects only them. When it DOES affect others (ie: church in schools), it is outlawed.

Consuming fast foods negatively impacts ME, not those around me.

Once again, capitalism works (in theory) because if I (and those around me) choose not to buy your over-priced goods, you will go out of business. Therefore, I only am affected by interaction when I choose to subject myself.

well if religion is out and nature is out, what possible reason can you have against it?

My main reason (there are others) is that it incurrs a greatly increased possibility for contraction of disease. (compared to a heterosexual, monogamous relationship)

Such contractions can fairly easily be spread to others, unintentionally.

It seems to me that this involves more people than just the two consenting to the action:

ie:
If I consume alcohol, fine - that's me.
When I drink and drive, I endanger others, and this is illegal.

Incorrect. Religion is sampled by a person, and affects only them. When it DOES affect others (ie: church in schools), it is outlawed.

Consuming fast foods negatively impacts ME, not those around me.

Once again, capitalism works (in theory) because if I (and those around me) choose not to buy your over-priced goods, you will go out of business. Therefore, I only am affected by interaction when I choose to subject myself.

in the Uk religion is very much allowed in schools.

And what about smoking? And driving huge 4x4s that have a much higher risk of pedestrian death in an accident?

My main reason (there are others) is that it incurrs a greatly increased possibility for contraction of disease. (compared to a heterosexual, monogamous relationship)

Such contractions can easily be spread to others, unintentionally.

It seems to me that this involves more people than just the two consenting to the action:

ie:
If I consume alcohol, fine - that's me.
When I drink and drive, I endanger others, and this is illegal.

I call bullshit on that.

More heterosexuals have aids than homosexuals in the world.

Being promiscuous is the factor of importance. Being monogamous and gay does not make you any more diseased.

[QUOTE=Thal_Ixu]@Fantastic: i would like to see a prove to you saying that being gay is genetic....sorry but that's just completely...stupid...just for a thought this would mean a person would never change his/her sexuality throughout life. but as far as i know most people don't start gay, they choose to become gay in the course of their lives.

Isn't it equally feasable that since society has suggested to them that they should be attracted to the opposite sex they dont discover their sexuality until later in life?

@Synnax: You shouldn't believe everything you hear. It is nonsense to say that gays are anatomically different from straight people...

With thousands of genes on 46 chromosomes many traits are linked, i.e. a man having 2 Y chromosomes would characteristically be more agressive and have somewhat disfigured ears. Speaking under the assumption that sexual orientation is a genetic trait, how could physical variations be nonsense?

I call bullshit on that.

More heterosexuals have aids than homosexuals in the world.

Being promiscuous is the factor of importance. Being monogamous and gay does not make you any more diseased.

To be quite honest, I'm not aware of any statistic listing heterosexuals as having a "higher rate" of AIDS infections than homosexuals - excepting instances where homosexuality is legalized - ie: Africa.

You are 100% correct - promiscuity is the reason for spread of diseases - however, the diseases are both potentially more deadly and carry a higher RISK of infection as we discuss the practice of homosexuality.

in the Uk religion is very much allowed in schools.

And what about smoking? And driving huge 4x4s that have a much higher risk of pedestrian death in an accident?

I was talking about the US laws, in which any form of religion is severely discouraged in public schooling.

Smoking (at least in my state) is illegal in public places, aside from designated areas (where only those who choose to smoke will be subjected to it).

Christians only follow the bible when it's convenient. Fuck em.

HOORAY FOR GAYS!!!

To be quite honest, I'm not aware of any statistic listing heterosexuals as having a "higher rate" of AIDS infections than homosexuals - excepting instances where homosexuality is legalized - ie: Africa.

You are 100% correct - promiscuity is the reason for spread of diseases - however, the diseases are both potentially more deadly and carry a higher RISK of infection as we discuss the practice of homosexuality.

no. Anal sex offers a higher risk of infection. Not being homosexual.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is not caused by homosexuals (in fact homosexuality is very supressed) it is caused by male attititudes toward contraception and promiscuity.

AIDS is not more deadly for a homosexual.

no. Anal sex offers a higher risk of infection. Not being homosexual.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is not caused by homosexuals (in fact homosexuality is very supressed) it is caused by male attititudes toward contraception and promiscuity.

AIDS is not more deadly for a homosexual.

I understand that "anal sex" is the cause behind the conception of AIDS - but I'm operating under the assumption that the homosexual lifestyle includes this practice.

(For the record, I don't think that sort of a practice is good for anyone, straight or otherwise.)

(edit: when i stated that "diseases are potentially more deadly" I was referring to the RANGE of diseases - not trying to imply that AIDS is somehow "less" serious if you're heterosexual, and contract it)

Meh, you can't stop people from doing what they want in their own bedrooms. Even though I'm a Christian and I'm against gay marriage and all, I still don't think the government should be able to dictate what goes on in your bedroom. I don't really mind homosexuals at all, a lot of them are nice and decent people. But I can't stand it when they try to press the issue. I know this guy who's gay, and all he ever talks about is his gay experiences, how gays are soo opressed, and it's just plain annoying. So, that's my thing with gays. As long as they don't A) Press the issue and B) Don't hit on me, I'm generally nice to them.

So if I understand you, as long as the gays aren't openly gay, don't consider themselves to be second-class citizens, and don't demand equality under the law, you are perfectly happy to let them go on with inferior rights and poor treatment.

The church is not over-opressive. They just want to keep marriage the way it was supposed to be. I don't have a problem with gays setting up their own union wher ethey have all the rights a married couple has. No one wants to deny them their rights, they deserve their rights just as we do.

And that's all gays are asking for. No one has suggested that religious organizations be forced to perform gay unions. . . . you know you can get married outside of a church right?

To clarify, in my initial post, I didn't mean that homosexuals made an active choice to be gay, that was an accident as i was writing the post I guess. Anyway, whether one chooses to be gay or not was not the issue I was putting forward.

But seeing as it has moved on, I watched an interesting program which said there was evidence that homosexuality was a gene, and it is when homosexuality is repressed via social tyranny that it is passed down, thus (rather ironically) homosexuality would logically die out if everyone that was gay didn't (consciously or subconsciously) bury it.

I understand that "anal sex" is the cause behind the conception of AIDS - but I'm operating under the assumption that the homosexual lifestyle includes this practice.

(For the record, I don't think that sort of a practice is good for anyone, straight or otherwise.)

(edit: when i stated that "diseases are potentially more deadly" I was referring to the RANGE of diseases - not trying to imply that AIDS is somehow "less" serious if you're heterosexual, and contract it)

what 'range of diseases'?

Anal sex is NOT the cause of AIDS, but the risk of blood/semen mix is high (because the anal wall is thin) so it is more risky than say vaginal sex.

Many homosexual people (like many straight people) do not have anal sex.

HIV/AIDS is more of a threat to heterosexual americans at the moment it seems

AIDS: The number of AIDS cases dropped 30 % and AIDS death rates dropped more than half between 1996 and 1998. Approximately 320,000 persons were living with AIDS in the year 2000. A convergence occurring between U.S. AIDS rates for males and females is due to increases in rates of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex and through injection drug use. An estimated 12,000 women became newly infected with HIV each year.

http://www.paho.org/English/DD/AIS/cp_840.htm

no. Anal sex offers a higher risk of infection. Not being homosexual.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is not caused by homosexuals (in fact homosexuality is very supressed) it is caused by male attititudes toward contraception and promiscuity.

AIDS is not more deadly for a homosexual.

Lets all note that The National AIDS Control Programme (NACO) puts the level of drug abuse in Delhi slums at 58 to 60 per cent. These Indian slums, no more sanitary than sewers, have a ballooning AIDs inflicted population mostly due to such things as sharing needles. There are very few homosexuals in India, so obviously the problem isn't the gay population.

I just felt the need to clear a few things up.

1) America was NOT founded by Christians. The ideas may have originally been those shared by Christians, but the founding fathers of this country were deists, not Christians. The only connection is that both believe in Creationism by a Creator.

2) This country was also never originally founded on the ideas of the separation of church and state. The very phrase "separation of church and state" was coined in a personal letter, written by Thomas Jefferson, to a friend of his. In addition, if you look at the history of our founding fathers, they came from England, where the king was also the head of the church in the Anglican Church (state church of the time). At the time, he was the governing authority (the state) using the church to further his political agenda. Essentially, the state was too involved in the church, not the other way around.

3) People will use the "pursuit of happiness" phrase in the Declaration of Independence to argue it, but the understanding of our forefathers was one that was likely derived from Aristotle, who said, and I quote: "Happiness is a virtuous action of the soul." Few people would consider homosexuality as 'virtuous.'

4) To respond to why the "religious right" has reacted so strongly toward homosexuality: It is because there is a push for the furthering of the idea. The one thing that this group does not usually do is rock the boat when things are going the way that it wants. Only when someone pushes for the amorality or morality of something that is considered by them immoral is there any resistance. There is no huge push to nationally legalize gambling. Therefore, there is no need for this "right" to resist what is not there. Controlling extramarital sex would be like controlling profanity. It would be nearly impossible under our current governmental system.

5) There are legitimate arguments that oppose the idea of allowing homosexual marriages that are outside any biblical source. One of my theses was the cultural and societal issues surrounding the legalization of homosexual marriages, and I have to say that I was thoroughly convinced that, since the job for a government is to do what is best for the society which is under it, legalizing homosexual marriages would not actually be in the best interests of society as a whole. This was argued with only extrabiblical sources and basic, reasonable logic. Those who oppose it do not have to be raving zealots or ignorant bigots.

Honestly, I do not think that there should be marriages between those of the same sex. Those who do think it should be allowed generally use one central argument: love. "If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry," is what they will say. Using the same argument, a variety of marriages could be just as valid: three or more people all getting married, a man or woman marrying himself or herself, animals and people marrying, minors and elders marrying, etc. I am not saying that these are going to result. What I will say is that these kinds of situations would have just as much validity using just the argument of love as the reason they "should be" allowed to marry.

what 'range of diseases'?

Anal sex is NOT the cause of AIDS, but the risk of blood/semen mix is high (because the anal wall is thin) so it is more risky than say vaginal sex.

Many homosexual people (like many straight people) do not have anal sex.

HIV/AIDS is more of a threat to heterosexual americans at the moment it seems

AIDS: The number of AIDS cases dropped 30 % and AIDS death rates dropped more than half between 1996 and 1998. Approximately 320,000 persons were living with AIDS in the year 2000. A convergence occurring between U.S. AIDS rates for males and females is due to increases in rates of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex and through injection drug use. An estimated 12,000 women became newly infected with HIV each year.

http://www.paho.org/English/DD/AIS/cp_840.htm

Once again, I understand the technicalities of contraction - I suppose I'm cutting corners by suppositioning that "x causes y" - to be more correct, I should have phrased it "x causes y in the vast majority of the cases"?

I find myself interested by the statisics you quote - do you have a link?

I suppose I'd also request data suggesting that "many homosexual couples" do not engage in the activity in question - coming contrairy to the percieved truth, as it were.

~snip-ped~

I have to agree with your statements.

Once again, I understand the technicalities of contraction - I suppose I'm cutting corners by suppositioning that "x causes y" - to be more correct, I should have phrased it "x causes y in the vast majority of the cases"?

I find myself interested by the statisics you quote - do you have a link?

I suppose I'd also request data suggesting that "many homosexual couples" do not engage in the activity in question - coming contrairy to the percieved truth, as it were.

not in a majority of cases. A majority of AIDS cases are heterosexuals in Africa. Look at the WHO website.

Once again, I understand the technicalities of contraction - I suppose I'm cutting corners by suppositioning that "x causes y" - to be more correct, I should have phrased it "x causes y in the vast majority of the cases"?

I find myself interested by the statisics you quote - do you have a link?

I suppose I'd also request data suggesting that "many homosexual couples" do not engage in the activity in question - coming contrairy to the percieved truth, as it were.

for a start most lesbians prefer oral, fingering or sex toys to the best of my knowledge. Of course there are jsut as many lesbians that enjoy anal sex as there are straight women.

My main reason (there are others) is that it incurrs a greatly increased possibility for contraction of disease. (compared to a heterosexual, monogamous relationship)

So I assume you are opposed to fraternities--because their members are more likely to contract a disease. I also assumeyou are opposed to all drinking, because drunk people are more likely to have unprotected sex and contract a disease.

Oh, and just so you know--a gay, monogamous relationship is no more likely than a heterosexual, monogamous relationship to result in disease. Further, a heterosexual who engages in lots and lots and lots of sex, is far more likely to get a disease than a homosexual that does not. It has more to do with the number of sexual partners than the type of sex engaged in.


Such contractions can fairly easily be spread to others, unintentionally.

Really? How? To my knowledge, the best way to get most STDs is through sex. . . .

...


Really? How? To my knowledge, the best way to get most STDs is through sex. . . .

don't forget sharing needles. that'll give you a good shot at a lot of them

Honestly, I do not think that there should be marriages between those of the same sex. Those who do think it should be allowed generally use one central argument: love. "If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry," is what they will say. Using the same argument, a variety of marriages could be just as valid: three or more people all getting married, a man or woman marrying himself or herself, animals and people marrying, minors and elders marrying, etc. I am not saying that these are going to result. What I will say is that these kinds of situations would have just as much validity using just the argument of love as the reason they "should be" allowed to marry.

1) a man or a woman marrying themselves is redundant. only Narcissus would ever have done that, but he was to busy gawping.

2) whos to say that three people can't get married? though it rarely works due to creating a climate where jealousy and decay of love thrive, who are we to tell people that they would be unable to do so?

3) animals and people marrying is completely retarded because we are, to date, technologically unable to understand what animals think or feel. besides coco the gorilla, that is. the argument of 'because they love each other' is completely redundant in a match involving a nonsentient (allegedly).

4) minors and elders marrying, though very close to the ethical line, would not work because those who are not legally seen as fit to care for themselves and make the best decisions in life are also not legally allowed to get married. the end.

pwned.

You are 100% correct - promiscuity is the reason for spread of diseases - however, the diseases are both potentially more deadly and carry a higher RISK of infection as we discuss the practice of homosexuality.

No, the disease is not more deadly from any random person to another with the exception of people who have natural immunity. It is just as likely to go quickly in a straight female as a gay man. It is the strain of the virus present that typically determines clinical course.

And it is not the practices of homosexuality that matter in horizontal transmission, but the practice of unprotected anal sex. Of course, not all gay men engage in that and many heterosexual couples DO engage in that. So the culprit is not homosexuality. I'm afraid you're going to have to find another excuse to justify your bigotry.

No, the disease is not more deadly from any random person to another with the exception of people who have natural immunity. It is just as likely to go quickly in a straight female as a gay man. It is the strain of the virus present that typically determines clinical course.

And it is not the practices of homosexuality that matter in horizontal transmission, but the practice of unprotected anal sex. Of course, not all gay men engage in that and many heterosexual couples DO engage in that. So the culprit is not homosexuality. I'm afraid you're going to have to find another excuse to justify your bigotry.

any unprotected sex. Anal is just slightly more risky. Even with oral you can catch STDs

I understand that "anal sex" is the cause behind the conception of AIDS - but I'm operating under the assumption that the homosexual lifestyle includes this practice.

In which assumption you would be wrong. Of the people in my close group of friends, only one of the four gay people has tried anal sex--and then only once. Of the straight people, about 8 out of 10 have tried it. You might think it odd, but we really are a close-knit group.


(edit: when i stated that "diseases are potentially more deadly" I was referring to the RANGE of diseases - not trying to imply that AIDS is somehow "less" serious if you're heterosexual, and contract it)

And yet again you are wrong. Heterosexuals are subject to the broader range of STDs than homosexuals are--not that we can't contract them, they just haven't made their way into the gay population yet. They're doing just fine in straight students in college though. Better ban those undergraduate institutions.

In which assumption you would be wrong. Of the people in my close group of friends, only one of the four gay people has tried anal sex--and then only once. Of the straight people, about 8 out of 10 have tried it. You might think it odd, but we really are a close-knit group.
I think you forgot a "that we discuss anal sex" in that last sentence. That gave me an interesting mental image the way it was...
:D

I suppose I'd also request data suggesting that "many homosexual couples" do not engage in the activity in question - coming contrairy to the percieved truth, as it were.

You mean the majority of people might use false information to justify their prejudices? Shock!

You mean the majority of people might use false information to justify their prejudices? Shock!
:confused:
It seemed to me like he was asking for info on the claim that many gay men don't do anal.

:confused:
It seemed to me like he was asking for info on the claim that many gay men don't do anal.

I know what he was asking for. I was being flippant.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] " :mad: Being GAY is an absolute disgrace" is not a thread title that accurately reflects your actual opinion. [/modedit]

I reckon that title will rope the people in.....hehe

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] Yes, it does rope people in, Moderators included. Please don't make inflammatory thread titles just to get attention. Thank you for your cooperation. [/modedit]

Anyway I reckon that to be gay is a choice that anyone makes with no harm to others and so it's completely up to them.
However I see increasingly in the US the religious right is desperate to end gay rights. Of course they back this up via the bible and so forth, but what always gets me is the way in which the bible just as much dispises meaningless sex and gambling, and yet you don't see massive parades calling for the closing of Las Vegas or the passing of laws discrediting sex before marriage.
Basically it's a case of double standards within religion, and it is my conclusion that the religious right in fact don't like gays not because it is what God says, but it's because what their own prejudice says.
I think it's a prime example of what John Stuart Mill argues as laws being made by 'the likings and dislikings' of society, instead of rationality.

*Yawn*
Or maybe it's just that we Christians can't get a law passed against against homosexuality, so there's no point in trying to outlaw pre-marital sex. MAYBE it's just that we don't have that much control, and that the only ones of us who really want to use the legal system to stop certain behaviors are friggin' idiots. If we tried to outlaw pre-marital sex, most Christians would say it was pointless. I know I would. So just MAYBE, we are trying to tackle something a little more feasible.

But hey, I know you don't like to think logically about Christian behavior. You prefer to assume we are all morons who act like sheep blabbidy blabbidy fucking blah.

people should be allowed to do whatever they want provided it does not adversely effect others around them.

*Yawn*
Or maybe it's just that we Christians can't get a law passed against against homosexuality, so there's no point in trying to outlaw pre-marital sex. MAYBE it's just that we don't have that much control, and that the only ones of us who really want to use the legal system to stop certain behaviors are friggin' idiots. If we tried to outlaw pre-marital sex, most Christians would say it was pointless. I know I would. So just MAYBE, we are trying to tackle something a little more feasible.

But hey, I know you don't like to think logically about Christian behavior. You prefer to assume we are all morons who act like sheep blabbidy blabbidy fucking blah.

what right would you have to outlaw pre-marital sex?

However I see increasingly in the US the religious right is desperate to end gay rights. Of course they back this up via the bible and so forth, but what always gets me is the way in which the bible just as much dispises meaningless sex and gambling, and yet you don't see massive parades calling for the closing of Las Vegas or the passing of laws discrediting sex before marriage.

The reason for this is that the idea of marriage is, to Christians, a celebration of what God has given humans in the nature of the relationship between men and women. It is a gift from God, not a human inspired idea. However, the notion of giving the same kind of celebration for something like a homosexual union is insulting to God. Because according to (many denomoinations) of Christianity, homosexual sex is a sin, the idea of creating a special homosexual union is saying

"Here we are, we are sinning and we are proud of it. Here our government is happy to glorify us in our sin by giving us special priviliages etc"

This is diffrent from just sin. This is a society glorifying sin. Thats why people are more angry.

what right would you have to outlaw pre-marital sex?

The same right that we have to outlaw stealing.

The reason for this is that the idea of marriage is, to Christians, a celebration of what God has given humans in the nature of the relationship between men and women. It is a gift from God, not a human inspired idea. However, the notion of giving the same kind of celebration for something like a homosexual union is insulting to God. Because according to (many denomoinations) of Christianity, homosexual sex is a sin, the idea of creating a special homosexual union is saying

"Here we are, we are sinning and we are proud of it. Here our government is happy to glorify us in our sin by giving us special priviliages etc"

This is diffrent from just sin. This is a society glorifying sin. Thats why people are more angry.

Yet why should you concept of what is right and wrong affect my equal treatment under the government that is just as much mine as it is your's. we aren't asking that Christian churches recognize our marriages or perform them. We are asking that the government, to which we pay taxes, treat us equally in civil matters.

The same right that we have to outlaw stealing.

no, stealing is an act without consent. If both parties consent to pre-marital sex, what right do you have?

Yet why should you concept of what is right and wrong affect my equal treatment under the government that is just as much mine as it is your's. we aren't asking that Christian churches recognize our marriages or perform them. We are asking that the government, to which we pay taxes, treat us equally in civil matters.

I wasnt adressing the nature of seperation of church and state. I was adressing the question made in the post, which is "why is the religious right so annoyed about this and not anything else e.g. pre marital sex"

2) This country was also never originally founded on the ideas of the separation of church and state. The very phrase "separation of church and state" was coined in a personal letter, written by Thomas Jefferson, to a friend of his.

And the first amendment makes it a part of the constitution.

3) People will use the "pursuit of happiness" phrase in the Declaration of Independence to argue it, but the understanding of our forefathers was one that was likely derived from Aristotle, who said, and I quote: "Happiness is a virtuous action of the soul." Few people would consider homosexuality as 'virtuous.'

Considering the society he lived in Aristotle most likely would.
Of course, where lies the basis of your claim ?

5) There are legitimate arguments that oppose the idea of allowing homosexual marriages that are outside any biblical source. One of my theses was the cultural and societal issues surrounding the legalization of homosexual marriages, and I have to say that I was thoroughly convinced that, since the job for a government is to do what is best for the society which is under it, legalizing homosexual marriages would not actually be in the best interests of society as a whole. This was argued with only extrabiblical sources and basic, reasonable logic. Those who oppose it do not have to be raving zealots or ignorant bigots.

Unfortunately you just say these arguments exist, but do not give them.So I can only guess that they are basicly the same that were used to claim abolishing slavery or giving woman equal rights was a bad idea: "it would upset society too much".

"If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry," is what they will say. Using the same argument, a variety of marriages could be just as valid: three or more people all getting married,

And the problem with this is... ?

a man or woman marrying himself or herself,
Intruiging notion. I see no problems with being faithful to oneself though.

animals and people marrying,
Yes, because animals can say "I do" in a clear voice and are obviously recognised as beings capable of consenting by a court.

minors and elders marrying,
I was unaware of the fact that minors could legally consent.

What I will say is that these kinds of situations would have just as much validity using just the argument of love as the reason they "should be" allowed to marry.
The first two: yes. The last two: no - as long as courts do not consider animals, children and adults as equals.

no, stealing is an act without consent. If both parties consent to pre-marital sex, what right do you have?

The right of a government to govern as it sees fit. If a government has been democraticly elected with a promise to ban gay marriage, surely it would be behaving undemocraticly if it did not.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3np8vpn684v6d?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Anal+sex&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b

80% of homosexual men from Edward O. Laumann's 'The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States' had engaged in anal sex.

Kinsey found heterosexual men the figure was nearer 40%

I wasnt adressing the nature of seperation of church and state. I was adressing the question made in the post, which is "why is the religious right so annoyed about this and not anything else e.g. pre marital sex"

I wasn't talking about premarital sex. And frankly, I think the fact that Christians want to violate the separation of church and state so freely is at the heart of this discussion. Perhaps it doesn't neatly fit into the original poster's question, but it is a valid expansion of our conversation.

Yay for being gay! Yay for not being gay! Yay for being bi or asexual! Yay for everyone, even the dumb people! :fluffle:
and teh smart people?

The right of a government to govern as it sees fit. If a government has been democraticly elected with a promise to ban gay marriage, surely it would be behaving undemocraticly if it did not.

And Un-American and in direct violation of the Consitution if it did.

and teh smart people?

That goes without being said :)

I wasn't talking about premarital sex. And frankly, I think the fact that Christians want to violate the separation of church and state so freely is at the heart of this discussion. Perhaps it doesn't neatly fit into the original poster's question, but it is a valid expansion of our conversation.

Do you find any fault with my expliantion of why Christians are more angry about gay marriage than other sins?

Because thats what my post was about. You have responded to my post by asking me something completely diffrent. I did not explain why I felt any such ban was vaild, I just explained that the idea of a so called "double standard" on the part of Christians in this case was not true. The discussion is not about the validty of the Church/State seperation but of why the Church is more angry about this issue than others.

And Un-American and in direct violation of the Consitution if it did.

I didnt say America. I said a government. Contary to popular belief, not everyone on this forum is American.

Do you find any fault with my expliantion of why Christians are more angry about gay marriage than other sins?

Because thats what my post was about. You have responded to my post by asking me something completely diffrent. I did not explain why I felt any such ban was vaild, I just explained that the idea of a so called "double standard" on the part of Christians in this case was not true. The discussion is not about the validty of the Church/State seperation but of why the Church is more angry about this issue than others.

Then consider my response an expansion of the discussion into a further realm. Respond if you like, don't respond if you like. However, I do fail to see why gay marriage is so much worse than say, marriage of two people who've had premarital sex and a child out of wedlock. Why celebrate that by granting rights and legitimacy to it?

I didnt say America. I said a government. Contary to popular belief, not everyone on this forum is American.

I do in fact realize that, but I can't argue outside of the American system, not being familiar enough with other systems to do so. Forgive me if I offend your delicate sensibilities by daring to say or discuss things that you don't want to discuss.

why do so many christians fear homosexuals?

Do you think they will make you homosexual?

Are you fighting with inner homosexual urges your religion says is a sin, and therefore overcompensating by making homosexuality out as a great evil?

Originally posted by Akkid
1) a man or a woman marrying themselves is redundant. only Narcissus would ever have done that, but he was to busy gawping.[/B]

It is a ridiculous example. That is the point. Would someone do this? It is not likely. Could they, using the argument of love? You bet they could. I think you must have failed to understand my point with this example, in particular. The point is that the same argument used by people practicing homosexuality could be used here, even if it is a ludicrous concept.

[I]2) whos to say that three people can't get married? though it rarely works due to creating a climate where jealousy and decay of love thrive, who are we to tell people that they would be unable to do so?

Again,, you prove my point when you say that "it rarely works due to [sic] creating a climate where jealousy and decay of love thrive." That is exactly why it would not be a beneficial idea. At the same time, however, the argument asserting that they all love each other would be just as valid here, dispite the negative reprocussions.

3) animals and people marrying is completely retarded because we are, to date, technologically unable to understand what animals think or feel. besides coco the gorilla, that is. the argument of 'because they love each other' is completely redundant in a match involving a nonsentient (allegedly).

First, I would love to compliment you on a foolish use of the word "retarded." Even if your intentions were not meant to offend those who personnaly know someone with AAMR or not, such a crude, ignorant misuse has no place in a forum of logical discussion.

Second, your point is exactly right IF I had simply referred to either audible language or symbolic language. However, it can easily be seen when some animals scared or defensive. Given that much of communicable language is not through symbols or verbal language, it is very possible to tell when someone's dog "loves" them by watching how it reacts around them. Similarly, we can tell how someone feels toward us, without them saying a word, by how they act around us.

4) minors and elders marrying, though very close to the ethical line, would not work because those who are not legally seen as fit to care for themselves and make the best decisions in life are also not legally allowed to get married. the end.

Ah, but now you have brought up the legality of a minor doing such. However, that is exactly the issue. Just as it is, as of now, illegal for those of the same gender to marry, it is illegal for a fifteen-year-old boy to marry a forty-five-year-old woman. In addition, I would assert that many over the age of eighteen still are not fit to care for themselves and make the best (Who determines this?) choices. Conversely, there are some that are younger than sixteen even, that would be better equipped to live as independants than some who are on their own. What has determined the age cut-off? Laws have, but if we are willing to draw into question the validity of laws that prevent homosexual unions, then why are we not allowed to draw into question the laws that provent this type of union?

The end.

Unnecessary, and certainly not intellectual. These arguments are from a very narrow perspective and take some things for granted.

pwned

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Maybe "owned" or some internet acronym. If it is what I think it is, then, to join your childish game:

You owned nothing.

The right of a government to govern as it sees fit. If a government has been democraticly elected with a promise to ban gay marriage, surely it would be behaving undemocraticly if it did not.
It would be undemocratic, fortunately.

...


animals cannot consent. If you accept that they are capable you are committing murder by eating them. You cannot ask an animal to consent to marriage.

Children cannot consent. They are unduely infuenced by older people. The arbitrary introduction is for laws sake to protect them, but i suggest a graduated system (like that used in Holland until recently) be used, where the difference in age is also considered.

self marriage serves no legal purpose.

It would be undemocratic, fortunately.

As far as I can tell, true democracy has never existed. We shell out tax dollars for a bureaucracy to make promises so that once it gets into power it can do what it pleases. Even minor democracy would have to start with a referendum for every single law to be made.

As far as I can tell, true democracy has never existed. We shell out tax dollars for a bureaucracy to make promises so that once it gets into power it can do what it pleases. Even minor democracy would have to start with a referendum for every single law to be made.
...ancient Athens, i believe, was as close to a true democracy as you can get

...ancient Athens, i believe, was as close to a true democracy as you can get

it sucked hard. Only athenian citizen males could vote, and then they had to be able to afford to get to the centre of Athens. Which without cars could take a few days form surroundign countryside


(I think their quorum was about 6000 - not huge considering the population)

it sucked hard. Only athenian citizen males could vote, and then they had to be able to afford to get to the centre of Athens. Which without cars could take a few days form surroundign countryside


(I think their quorum was about 6000 - not huge considering the population)
still the closest anywheres ever got to an actual democracy...and it was, in a sense.

those eligible to vote did, and majority ruled

...

... and majority ruled

and my god did they pay for that...

look up the aftermath of the battle of Arginisai/Arginusai if you want to see how...

I love how secularists proclaim themselves and their line of reasoning to be somehow superior to everyone elses - as long as that someone else follows some set of religious tenets.

I love how secularists proclaim themselves and their line of reasoning to be somehow superior to everyone elses - as long as that someone else follows some set of religious tenets.

that's because secular reasoning is based on reason, not faith

Many consider faith the continuation of reason.

(See how these appeals go?)

Originally posted by The Alma Mater
And the first amendment makes it a part of the constitution.

Wrong, my friend. The first ammendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This outlaws the establishment of a national religion, as was the case in England. This says, rather, that the government is not allowed to establish a national religion. A law being passed based on its roots in some religious faction's beliefs is not the same as instituting a national religion, as is practiced in so many other countries. This is to avoid the persecution of those that do not practice the 'religion' (I hate that word) of the majority. In essence, this was to protect the minority, which a true democracy does not do well (Thankfully, the United States is not a true democracy, but a democratic republic.). Read your history book and look at what generally happens when a national religion is instituted. The effects are usually detrimental to both the religion's church and to the citizens. The citizens are persecuted unless they join the state church and the church tends to become corrupt as people join just to be safe, but do not really practice the 'religion' (Damn, there it is again! ;) ), thus watering down the church and causing division.

In essence, the main idea that 'the separation of church and state' is constitutional is founded in the misconception that a church and a religion are the exact same thing. You do not have to attend my church. That is your right, through the first ammendment. You do not have to agree with my religion. That is also your constitutional right. However, if the government is going to legally prohibit Christian ideals that may or may not have some societal benefits based on a complete separation of church and state (which is not the actual law, anyway), then they should equally enforce taking any political banter out of all churches. One may say that this is not their jurisdiction, but under a complete separation of church and state, it would be equally as illegal to bring political ideas into churches as it would to bring church's ideas into politics.









I wrote:
3) People will use the "pursuit of happiness" phrase in the Declaration of Independence to argue it, but the understanding of our forefathers was one that was likely derived from Aristotle, who said, and I quote: "Happiness is a virtuous action of the soul." Few people would consider homosexuality as 'virtuous.'



Considering the society he lived in Aristotle most likely would.
Of course, where lies the basis of your claim?

Fair question. My posts would be nearly unreadably long if I put everything into it that I could. I try to touch on what is important, but if I am to make such a claim, I should be able to defend it.

I see three reasonable ways that this would be a legitimate claim. The first is that I see a group of individuals that came from a monarchy and started a republic with overwhelming democratic tendencies. It draws me to ask where they would have gotten the idea to institute such a political set-up. The answer, in my reasoning, would likely lie in them looking to where democracy seemed to be a large success: Ancient Greece. Thus, they could have, and as far as I can tell, likely would have, conformed the governmental institution to the ideals of that time, the time of Aristotle, among other philosophers.

A second reason I draw this conclusion is from the fact that the founders of the U.S. were deists. While the belief systems of Deism and Orthodox Christianity are very different, their moral values are very similar (used to be a Deist, myself). The founding fathers would have then, instinctively, not gone against their own beliefs so as to completely separate religion and state issues. The wording in the Constitution, literally, means that those who live in the United States as citizens are legally allowed to practice their own religious (It wasn't as hard to write that time.) beliefs without fear of the government outlawing it.

Thirdly, our modern idea of happiness is a result of our post-modern lean. These men were living in an era of premodernism, where the ideas of subjective morality were not regarded as legitimate.

The problem with the ideas that this happiness means the same as it does today is that we have lost the art of placing pieces in their context. This is also a result of post-modern thinking. Instead of trying to figure out what an author of that time meant by examining his culture, language, professed beliefs, etc., we look at a piece and try to decide what it means to us, personally. This can lead to problems in translation (Just look at the Bible! Translation problems everywhere, as a result of neglecting the context of the books.). The King James Version of the Bible was written in 1611, for example. The language was different. The grammar was different. The ideas were different. Yet, we find it hard to understand or even read. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written closer to the time of the birth of the KJV Bible than they were to our day today.


Quote:
5) There are legitimate arguments that oppose the idea of allowing homosexual marriages that are outside any biblical source. One of my theses was the cultural and societal issues surrounding the legalization of homosexual marriages, and I have to say that I was thoroughly convinced that, since the job for a government is to do what is best for the society which is under it, legalizing homosexual marriages would not actually be in the best interests of society as a whole. This was argued with only extrabiblical sources and basic, reasonable logic. Those who oppose it do not have to be raving zealots or ignorant bigots.



Unfortunately you just say these arguments exist, but do not give them.So I can only guess that they are basicly the same that were used to claim abolishing slavery or giving woman equal rights was a bad idea: "it would upset society too much".

I am sorry for the lack of clarity. Again, this post is already long. Imagine if it was combined with the last one. But since you asked . . .

While heterosexual promiscuity is just as dangerous as homosexual promiscuity, the statistics are slightly higher for the number of partners for the average practicing homosexual, per year, than the number of partners for a heterosexual (11:6). In fact, 97% of open homosexuals admitted to having over fifteen partners in their life. Thus, the homosexual community, to this point, has not been beneficial to society in preventing STDs. Instead, it has increased the chances for the average person, regardless of sexual orientation, to contract such a disease. Now, there are far fewer homosexuals that have STDs than heterosexuals. However, the percentage of homosexuals with STDs is much higher. It would, in fact, be virtually impossible for more homosexuals to have higher STD counts because, according to a study (I do admit that the study is four years old.) done in 2001, approximately one percent of the entire population is homosexual. Thus, for the idea that there were more gays with STDs, less than 1.01% of heterosexuals would have to have an STD.

In addition, according to a Jeff Meyers (not an orthodox Christian organization in any way) study, found that the average expectancy of a practicing homosexual among those in the study was only 41. Eighty percent of homosexual males admitted to having engaged in oral-anal sex. Ninety percent admitted to having genital-anal sex. Proportionally, homosexuals are actually one-hundred times more likely to be murdered (I didn't believe this statistic at first.). Unfortunately, some of this is a result of hate crimes. Oddly enough, though, that is only the case about half the time. Many other times, it is a result of a jilted lover or something having to do with a relationship. Proportionally, they are also twenty-five times more likely to commit suicide. It is unfortunate that anyone should do such a thing, but i must admit that it is true.


What I said:
"If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry," is what they will say. Using the same argument, a variety of marriages could be just as valid: three or more people all getting married,

And the problem with this is... ?

See my previous post.

I said:
a man or woman marrying himself or herself,


Intriguing notion. I see no problem being faithful to one's self though.

My point, as it was earlier, is that this would be redundant. It is reasonable through the argument of love alone, but it does border on ridiculous.


I said:
animals and people marrying,


Yes, because animals can say "I do" in a clear voice and are obviously recognised as beings capable of consenting by a court.

I admit that you have a reasonable argument. However, would this mean that someone who cannot speak and has no arms (Believe it or not, they do exist. I am related to one.) could not marry. This would also limit those who are mentally retarded, as they may not be able to consent. "By a court" has gone out the window in this argument, because the very argument itself is going against what is currently the law. I will admit, though, that this was one of the more absurd statements. Interestingly, that was the point. You are using an argument other than shared love. In a way, I like that. At least you are reasonable.

What I said:
minors and elders marrying,

I was unaware of the fact that minors could legally consent.

I was also unaware that homosexuals could legally marry. Since we are drawing legality into question, here, it cannot be used as an argument.


What I said:
What I will say is that these kinds of situations would have just as much validity using just the argument of love as the reason they "should be" allowed to marry.


The first two: yes. The last two: no - as long as courts do not consider animals, children and adults as equals.

Ah, so now you are the one that is adding the stipulations to love, making that more than what is necessary. Also, at the risk of sounding redundant, we are drawing legality into question. What the courts enforce is, therefore, not a legitimate defense, since it is being drawn into question and then refuted simultaneously.




Originally posted by Enlightened Humanity
animals cannot consent. If you accept that they are capable you are committing murder by eating them. You cannot ask an animal to consent to marriage.

Ah, not so! You show a perfect example of false logic in the form of a Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy. Your argument would assert that in order to believe that eating animals is not murder, I would have to believe that they are not able to consent. You are asserting two ideas that are, in fact, not connected. Your definition of murder is flawed, as well. You reason that the ability to consent is directly connected to what determines murder. If this is the case, young children, patients in comas, mentally insane individuals, and some who have AAMR could be killed and it would not be murder, because these individuals cannot consent. Murder, I would assert, is the unnecessary, intentional killing of another human being for personal reason, but that is an entirely separate issue.

Children cannot consent. They are unduely infuenced by older people. The arbitrary introduction is for laws sake to protect them, but i suggest a graduated system (like that used in Holland until recently) be used, where the difference in age is also considered.

I would actually concur with your idea of a graduated system. However, it is the law that children cannot consent. We are calling the law into question, here, which means it is as plausible to draw that into question as it is for the idea for homosexual marriage to be drawn into question. I know some minors that likely could consent. Granted they are not below the age of a teen, but they are still minors. In addition, you don't think that "consenting" adults can be manipulated in much the same way as a child? That is exactly what happens in many of the suicidal cults. Grown adults are coerced to do what I would consider that which is even more outrageous than marriage. Undue influence? You bet. Are they still consenting? I don't know, but they are above eighteen years old.

self marriage serves no legal purpose.

Exactly my point. It would be valid, given only the love argument, though. I am pointing out that the argument itself is absurd.

. . . secular reasoning is based on reason, not faith

Pardon my chuckle. Most secular reasoning is based on feelings, not reason or logic. Both sides have quite a few knuckleheads.

Many consider faith the continuation of reason.

(See how these appeals go?)

Isn't the whole point of faith that you don't need reason or logic to back you, you believe without needing any form of validation?

Pracus, in all actuality, that is not the case.

It can be defined that way, though it shouldn't. That was the faith that was derived from the teachings of Schleiermacher in the early 1600s. True faith is accepting what is logical based on a set of presuppositions. The reason we use the presuppositions that we do is usually related to what we have been told. As odd as this sounds, every worldview has a set of presuppositions. These presuppositions are how we answer tough questions, such as, "What is the purpose of man's existence?" There is really no argument, because the only arguments made are out of silence, which is a fallacy.

That is actually why I would say that the big bang theory is plausible, given that you believe man has no purpose, there is no God, and you must believe by faith that there was something that had to bang, to answer the question, "What banged?" Also, you must accept by faith that order was created from disorder, which is opposite the accepted scientific order of nature. One must also accept that he has no answer to the "Watchmaker Theory," which is given this way:

Suppose you are walking in the woods and you come across a stick. You kick it out of your path, saying to yourself, "It is just a stick, a result of evolution." Later, you come across a golden pocketwatch. It is very ornate and the cogs are near perfectly functioning. Could you say to yourself, "It is just a watch, a result of evolution," and toss it aside? Most would say no. Now, take into account the fact that the human eye is more intricate than a watch. In order to say that an eye was a result of evolution, one would have to admit that the pocketwatch at least could be a product of evolution.

These require just as much faith as any Christian theology that has been well constructed. Still, some worldviews are right and some are wrong. The difference is, if all of my suppositions are different from yours, then there is no point in arguing. It doesn't mean that there is no right answer. It just means that we do no good in arguing them.

With Christianity, I accept that there is a God, and in doing so, the rest of the questions are able to be answered in Him. When all you know is what you can sense empirically, it leaves you with no excuse for the unanswerable questions. In addition, without a Creator (You should read Summa Theologica. I am not even Catholic, as Aquinas was, but the piece is an excellent logical defense for a Creator of the universe.), it leaves you without an explanation as to what would cause a bang if there was nothing to bang. An action, such as a bang, had to have a cause, or catalyst. It is, therefore, illogical to say that the bang was what created everything, as there had to be something before the bang to cause the bang.

Everyone has faith. For one to not have faith, he would have to not believe anything.

Suppose you are walking in the woods and you come across a stick. You kick it out of your path, saying to yourself, "It is just a stick, a result of evolution." Later, you come across a golden pocketwatch. It is very ornate and the cogs are near perfectly functioning. Could you say to yourself, "It is just a watch, a result of evolution," and toss it aside? Most would say no. Now, take into account the fact that the human eye is more intricate than a watch. In order to say that an eye was a result of evolution, one would have to admit that the pocketwatch at least could be a product of evolution.
For this to be an accurate representation of anything, you would actually have to find the watch in a forest of clockwork trees that run on gears related to those found in the watch but different in arrangement. You would also need to find primitive proto-watches, like the light-sensitive patches found in nematodes.

snip



A lot of your logic and philsophy is beyond my ability to even comprehend at the moment given that I am knee deep in hormone agonists and antongonists, psychiatric drugs (which I need to be on evidently) and vitamins that I have to memorize by Friday. So, I am not going to give you a good response here--and you deserve a well thought-out reply to an excellent post. Really, your response is one of the best I've seen on here--and that is why I have to ask you to be patient until this weekend when I will hopefully have the time to reply.

You will probably see me make responses to some others, but rest assures that that just means that I don't have to think to reply to them and take it as a compliment.

Does anyone else think that homosexuality is hereditary? I have heard that in autopsies of gays some element of the brain is different or something, and if that's true then doesn't that prove it? (unless Lamarck's theory of evolution suddenly became reality) I know someone who is gay, and who's father is also gay, although it could very well be a coincidence.

Or it just could be that his father, being gay, decided to raise his children and encourage them to be homosexual too. Making it neither coincidence nor biological, but a choice.

Thank you, Pracus. It is good to know that a Masters in Theology as well as a PhD in Philosophy will get me something. ;)

Ninja Zombie Dinosaur, the intent of that argument, which has never been definitively refuted, despite being . . . well . . . older than I am, is not that it must be similar. The idea is that if natural chaos could then come to order and develop something as intricate and delicate and as a human eye, it must at least be able to come up with a watch of such quality and intricacy.

Synnax, I examined that study. Spent a long time on it. Did you ever find out how the doctor who performed these autopsies determined the sexual orientation of the corpses?

You're gonna love this. He guessed, based on circular reasoning. He said, essentially, that there were some of his tests that had larger INAH3 in their brains, I believe (Don't hold me to that, but you were right, it did have something to do with the brains.), and that those were the ones that were homosexual. From that, he tried to conclude that homosexuals had this INAH3 difference. So, according to this reasoning, he determined the condition of his tests by the proposed conclusion and used that as the only supporting evidence to back his claim: one of the most blatant uses of the circular reasoning fallacy that I have ever come across.

It is good to see that you have at least done some homework, though. ;)

Or it just could be that his father, being gay, decided to raise his children and encourage them to be homosexual too. Making it neither coincidence nor biological, but a choice.

And yet gay people raise straight kids all the time. . .and amazingly my parents were straight and raised me under the assumption that I would be too. The only thing parents can really affect concerning human sexuality is how tolerant their children are of people that are different.

And yet gay people raise straight kids all the time. . .and amazingly my parents were straight and raised me under the assumption that I would be too. The only thing parents can really affect concerning human sexuality is how tolerant their children are of people that are different.

And yet straight people seem to raise gay kids even more often.

And (hypothetically) amazingly my parents were gay and raised me under the assumption that I would be too.

Any couple that refuses to unconditionally love their kids is going to present this problem. Whether it be straight parents who refuse to accept a homosexual kid, or gay parents who try to force their kids to grow up the same way.

Despite the media's constant attempts to portray same-sex parents (of which very few actually exist) as being able to make a very stable familial unit, the reality is much the opposite, because there is ALWAYS an agenda and therefore ALWAYS pressure on the kids to conform.

Plus, from a simple social engineering viewpoint, the children in that family will NEVER have any adult perspective from whichever gender is not represented, making them socially incomplete - which, as blunt as it sounds, is a psychological truth.

This outlaws the establishment of a national religion, as was the case in England. This says, rather, that the government is not allowed to establish a national religion. A law being passed based on its roots in some religious faction's beliefs is not the same as instituting a national religion, as is practiced in so many other countries.

Hmmm... but if the government for instance is entirely Catholic, and only passes laws that fit the Catholic ideals, are you not de facto adopting a religion as statereligion ? You do not need to force people into the church by stating it is obligatory, or forbid other religions, just make it impossible to excersise them freely. Since that is another clause in the same amendment, and considering the "in no way" in the famous quote "The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion" - I think your interpretation is not exactly what the writers of the constitution intended. However - I concede it is an interpretation that follows the text.

Fair question. My posts would be nearly unreadably long if I put everything into it that I could. I try to touch on what is important, but if I am to make such a claim, I should be able to defend it.

<snip defense>

Your reasoning seems quite logical - but logical reasoning is not necessarily proof ;) I seem to recall there are quite a few documents that explain how the words in the US constitution are meant to be read, Do those documents support your reasoning ?
And I must again point out that Aristotle would probably have allowed homosexuality to be filed under happyness. Why would the founding fathers not if they used his terminology ?

While heterosexual promiscuity is just as dangerous as homosexual promiscuity, the statistics are slightly higher for the number of partners for the average practicing homosexual, per year, than the number of partners for a heterosexual (11:6).
But this can be argued to be due to the stigma that surrounds homosexuality. Being forced to keep your sexuality a secret since society does not accept it does not promote stable relationships - but instead promotes promiscuity. Following this reasoning pomoting acceptance and allowing homosexuals to engage in marriage will make them (on average) far less promiscuis. And happier.. so less prone to other crimes.
Of course, there is only one way to test this hypothesis.




I admit that you have a reasonable argument. However, would this mean that someone who cannot speak and has no arms (Believe it or not, they do exist. I am related to one.) could not marry.

The person in question would still be able to express his concious desire and consent in another way I assume ? In that case there is no problem. Otherwise... how could one even know he/she wishes to marry ?
And anticipating your reasoning: if you can show that a non-human is sentient, capable to understand the concept of marriage and can conciously concede (which a level of development equivalent to a human adult)those marriages should be valid. I do not believe there are animals on earth that qualify - but who knows what the future will bring..

This would also limit those who are mentally retarded, as they may not be able to consent.
I am actually in favour of that. Marriage IMO is a promise to take responsibilty for eachother. Which in general is something children, animals and mentally retarded people cannot do. Though I admit the same can be said of quite a lot of adults.

You are using an argument other than shared love. In a way, I like that. At least you are reasonable.
Actually most people do this and you were arguing against an argument that is seldom used in reality ;) Or, alternatively, one could say there are different kinds of love and I distinguish between them.

I was also unaware that homosexuals could legally marry. Since we are drawing legality into question, here, it cannot be used as an argument.
It can when we view two different laws. One defines what constitutes what an adult is, the other what adults can do.

And yet straight people seem to raise gay kids even more often.

And (hypothetically) amazingly my parents were gay and raised me under the assumption that I would be too.

Any couple that refuses to unconditionally love their kids is going to present this problem. Whether it be straight parents who refuse to accept a homosexual kid, or gay parents who try to force their kids to grow up the same way.

Despite the media's constant attempts to portray same-sex parents (of which very few actually exist) as being able to make a very stable familial unit, the reality is much the opposite, because there is ALWAYS an agenda and therefore ALWAYS pressure on the kids to conform.

Plus, from a simple social engineering viewpoint, the children in that family will NEVER have any adult perspective from whichever gender is not represented, making them socially incomplete - which, as blunt as it sounds, is a psychological truth.


Many of those arguments apply to single parent families. Are we going to make them illegal? What about widows, are we going to force them to remarry?

Or can you accept that children can have role models of gender outside of parents?

Many of those arguments apply to single parent families. Are we going to make them illegal? What about widows, are we going to force them to remarry?

Or can you accept that children can have role models of gender outside of parents?
Facts are facts. We're constantly fed propaganda that the children of same sex couples are magically better and more tolerant than others. The reality of history and the very nature of humans indicates that a child will grow up better adjusted if it has a parent of each gender. It's only common sense.

Facts are facts. We're constantly fed propaganda that the children of same sex couples are magically better and more tolerant than others. The reality of history and the very nature of humans indicates that a child will grow up better adjusted if it has a parent of each gender. It's only common sense.
Your right it IS ONLY common sense like so many things that have been disproved in the future … just because many people believe something to be true does not make it so (I am not saying if you are wrong or right) but appealing to common sense is a fallacy of proof

Facts are facts. We're constantly fed propaganda that the children of same sex couples are magically better and more tolerant than others.

children who have experienced needless discrimination will be more sensitive and aware of such discrimination than children who have not. what's so odd about that?


The reality of history and the very nature of humans indicates that a child will grow up better adjusted if it has a parent of each gender. It's only common sense.
actually, no, that's not what "the very nature of humans" tells us. all current data show there is no change in the mental or social stability of children raised in same-sex families. current and historical data also show very clearly that children in "traditional" homes are far more likely to be physically or sexually abused, and it is well-established that physical and sexual abuse do not result in "better adjusted" children.

indeed, if you want to concern yourself with how well adjusted children will be, and if you want to use that to determine which families to allow and which to not allow, then your priorities are a bit off. your first goal should be to take children out of any home with an alcoholic, immediately. your second goal should be to remove children from any home where the parents score "extremely religious" on at least 3 of the standardized religiosity indexes. you see, the best indicators for future child maladjustment are alcoholism and strong religiosity in the parents. homosexuality of parents isn't even in the top ten of indicators, as a matter of fact, though living in a single-parent home is...you're priorities seem a bit out of whack.

Your right it IS ONLY common sense like so many things that have been disproved in the future … just because many people believe something to be true does not make it so (I am not saying if you are wrong or right) but appealing to common sense is a fallacy of proof
in this case, "common sense" is wrong. but keep in mind: for about 20% of Americans, it is "common sense" that the sun orbits the Earth.

why do so many christians fear homosexuals?

Do you think they will make you homosexual?

Are you fighting with inner homosexual urges your religion says is a sin, and therefore overcompensating by making homosexuality out as a great evil?

No Christians "fear" homosexuals as you put it. Many Christians believe Homosexuality to be a sin. Now people sinning has been done for thousands upon thousands of years, its nothing new. The reason that the idea of Gay marriage has got many Christians so angry that they see it as a glorification of a sin.

No Christians "fear" homosexuals as you put it. Many Christians believe Homosexuality to be a sin. Now people sinning has been done for thousands upon thousands of years, its nothing new. The reason that the idea of Gay marriage has got many Christians so angry that they see it as a glorification of a sin.

So why aren't they up in arms in court fighting against the right of people to get divorced, or against the right of divorced people to remarry?

Hmm? I don't see the same fervor for what could technically be sin.

So why aren't they up in arms in court fighting against the right of people to get divorced, or against the right of divorced people to remarry?

Hmm? I don't see the same fervor for what could technically be sin.

It's because they might feel compelled to practice bestiality or polygamy to lend after the fact substance to an arguement totally and presently devoid of it.

So why aren't they up in arms in court fighting against the right of people to get divorced, or against the right of divorced people to remarry?

Hmm? I don't see the same fervor for what could technically be sin.

Divorce and remarriage can too be seen as sins and a long time ago, there was a great deal of protest regarding divorce and re-marriage by the Christian church. Basicly the protest remains but at a much lower level. Certianly the church still protests against divorce for no real good reason. Christian teaching is clear that while divorce is not supported, it is allowed in certian cases. Thoses cases being where the biblicaly defined roles of husband and wife have been violated in some manner by one or both of the partners.

The diffrence though in this case is that what you are talking about is the government allowing a sin to happen. Banning homosexual marriage does not stop homosexuality happening. It simpley stops the government glorifying it. To Christians, the idea of allowing Gay marriage is akin to giving a theif a legitamte right to go and steal everything in your house.

that's because secular reasoning is based on reason, not faith

Reason, it can be argued, is just a less obvious form of faith. It, like faith, is based on a set of supositions and is built up from those supositions. It can be argued that said supositions only make sense in referance to themselves. Its just people consider faith to be more "out there" because of the subject matter.

To Christians, the idea of allowing Gay marriage is akin to giving a theif a legitamte right to go and steal everything in your house.
care to explain that? how are you victimized by another couple entering into a lawful union? you realize that you have no Constitutionally-protected right to not be ticked off, right? i mean, you aren't allowed to claim that something is being "stolen" from you just because people make personal, private choices you disapprove of.

for instance, say that i find religious weddings abhorent, and believe the idea of life-unions is degraded by every religious union that occurs. by allowing religious marriages, is the government giving the theif permission to steal from me? sure, i'm just one person, and i'm sure your going to bring up the "majority rules" idea that more people hate gays than hate religious marriages, but the simple fact is that our government is not based on the "majority rules" system. it would be unjust for the government to allow theft from one person, right? so why should i be victimized while your "rights" are protected?

No Christians "fear" homosexuals as you put it.
wow, are you really prepared to defend that? you really think there are NO Christians who fear homosexual? given that i have met several Christian individuals who fully and freely admit to being afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality, i am really anxious to hear how you plan to support your claim.

care to explain that? how are you victimized by another couple entering into a lawful union? you realize that you have no Constitutionally-protected right to not be ticked off, right? i mean, you aren't allowed to claim that something is being "stolen" from you just because people make personal, private choices you disapprove of.


I was talking in the contex of Christianity, not the American constiturion. If you read the quote it says "To Christians". I did not claim Christians were "Victimised" by gay marriage. I just said thats the logic it says to Christians. To God, sin is sin. Therefore to glorify homosexuality (which many Christians believe is a sin) is to glorify all sins. Hence the metaphor of stolen. Its an example of one sin being glorified. I could just have easily said murders or adulterers etc. The result is the same. Sinning is bad enough, glorifying sin is even worse.

What I believe is I don't care who you are. I want More people to join Storm Land region and help me kill all natives, if you kill the natives you get their land.

wow, are you really prepared to defend that? you really think there are NO Christians who fear homosexual? given that i have met several Christian individuals who fully and freely admit to being afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality, i am really anxious to hear how you plan to support your claim.

The person who originally said that Christians fear homosexuals implied it as a fear that Christians are affriad that

- They may like homosexuality
- They have homosexual desires themselves
- Homosexuals may make others gay

Christians are not concerened about that. What they are concerned about is the glorification of what they consider a sin.

The person who originally said that Christians fear homosexuals implied it as a fear that Christians are affriad that

- They may like homosexuality
- They have homosexual desires themselves
- Homosexuals may make others gay

Christians are not concerened about that. What they are concerned about is the glorification of what they consider a sin.

Go read some of Fred Phelps writings and come back and tell me Christians aren't afraid that gays will convert. And as Bottle pointed out, you can hardly support the suppositin that there are NO Christians who are afraid of gays in the ways you listed.

I was talking in the contex of Christianity, not the American constiturion. If you read the quote it says "To Christians". I did not claim Christians were "Victimised" by gay marriage. I just said thats the logic it says to Christians. To God, sin is sin. Therefore to glorify homosexuality (which many Christians believe is a sin) is to glorify all sins. Hence the metaphor of stolen. Its an example of one sin being glorified. I could just have easily said murders or adulterers etc. The result is the same. Sinning is bad enough, glorifying sin is even worse.


Actually, you are the one who brought the government into it when you talked about Christians having a problem with the government supporting it. So tell me, how do you reconcile that? How do you support banning gay marriage while support equality for all (which is one of the cores of American ideals).

Actually, you are the one who brought the government into it when you talked about Christians having a problem with the government supporting it. So tell me, how do you reconcile that? How do you support banning gay marriage while support equality for all (which is one of the cores of American ideals).

Since I am not American, I do not subscribe to all American ideals. And I did not bring the government into it. I just explained why Christians have a hard time supporting it. The government was brought in at the begining of the thread. The way I support it is simple. I believe that marriage is not just a union between two people who love each other very deeply and sincerely. Marriage is specificly designed for men and women. It is not something which can be addapted for other groups. I have no problem with inter-racial marriage etc, but marriage is and always was and should be for men and women only, not two men or two women. To me, the idea of giving marriage liscenes to two men/two women is like giving a bus driving liscence to a cat. Its not who its for. You can disagree if you like, thats just how I hold it. Eqaulity only applies where the said provision is offerd within logical sense. There is no logical reason to ban inter racial marriage. There is a logical reason to ban gay marriage. The reason being is that marriage is a union of one man and one women. Not just a commitment by two people who love each other very much.

I'm gonna keep this short since it is late (or early, depending on how you look at it when it's 6 AM and I haven't slept a wink; I am working too much.) and I am cranky.

Originally posted by Neo Cannen
And as Bottle pointed out, you can hardly support the suppositin that there are NO Christians who are afraid of gays in the ways you listed.

Sadly, you are correct. Please understand, however, that this is not the universal majority of Christians. I do not agree with the Homosexual Union idea in the least (socially or morally), but please understand that there are those of us that have reasons that do not involve fear.

I'm going to bed.