NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?

Love between men is a great thing… but not eros, erotic love. Marriage is a man and a woman according to Scripture.

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

this is why christians have such a fit about gays.

Evilbible.com

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

this is why christians have such a fit about gays.

Evilbible.com Don't bother with that site to him, he's a Catholic. Catholics believe the word of God has been changed and harmed down the years and needs interpretation.

I NEVER cite that verse from Leviticus, to do so is debatial suicide.

I'm not religious at all, and am FOR same-sex marriage.
I saw this quote a few weeks ago, but can't remember who said it:

"What are you trying to protect heterosexual marriage from? There isn't a limited amount of love in the world, it isn't a non-renewable resource.

If Amy and Barbara, or Mike and Steve love each other, it doesn't mean that John and Mary can't."

And I quite agree with that.

I'm not religious at all, and am FOR same-sex marriage.
I saw this quote a few weeks ago, but can't remember who said it:

"What are you trying to protect heterosexual ammriage from? There isn't a limited amount of love in the world, it isn't a non-renewable resource.

If Amy and Barbara, or Mike and Steve love each other, it doesn't mean that John and Mary can't."

And I quite agree with that. John and Mary DON'T love each other. Ever seen Father Ted?

Love between men is a great thing… but not eros, erotic love. Marriage is a man and a woman according to Scripture.

The scripture has no bearing on secular law.

If you want to stop gay marriage you can't use religious law as the reason.

Don't bother with that site to him, he's a Catholic. Catholics believe the word of God has been changed and harmed down the years and needs interpretation.

I NEVER cite that verse from Leviticus, to do so is debatial suicide.
Hey what can you say when it is in the same book as declaring eating of shellfish evil along with wearing textile mixtures one has to start wondering about it

The scripture has no bearing on secular law.

If you want to stop gay marriage you can't use religious law as the reason. I didn't say anything about law, I just said that scripture could bear on whether someone thinks it is right or wrong.

I didn't say anything about law, I just said that scripture could bear on whether someone thinks it is right or wrong.

I wasn't refering to you specifically, you is also the plural second-person pronoun.

But, have a cookie for being a good sport. :D

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

this is why christians have such a fit about gays.

Evilbible.com
Note is says nothing about women lying with other women. :D

EDIT:

And I might add that the particular Leviticus verse is nudged in there with shellfish/textiles/etc., which were rules meant to keep the culture pure.

Cultures around the area shaved their beards. Jews were forbidden to.
Culture around the area practices ritual homosexuality in temple rites. This too, was forbidden.

It was to keep them holy (that is, "set apart" from the cultures around them).

As for a new testament look a homosexuality, consider these points:
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman according to the Bible.
2. Sex outside marriage is wrong.

Thus, being homosexual isn't a sin, only practicing it is. =P

Note is says nothing about women lying with other women. :D

EDIT:

And I might add that the particular Leviticus verse is nudged in there with shellfish/textiles/etc., which were rules meant to keep the culture pure.

Cultures around the area shaved their beards. Jews were forbidden to.
Culture around the area practices ritual homosexuality in temple rites. This too, was forbidden.

It was to keep them holy (that is, "set apart" from the cultures around them).

As for a new testament look a homosexuality, consider these points:
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman according to the Bible.
2. Sex outside marriage is wrong.

Thus, being homosexual isn't a sin, only practicing it is. =P I've yet to meet a Christian who believes that being a homosexual is a sin. You can't help it.

I've yet to meet a Christian who believes that being a homosexual is a sin. You can't help it.

I've met more than one - on these forums even.

As a religious person, I'm sick and tired of the government trying to control my religious practices. It's pretty well agreed on the religious right that the seperation of church and state was designed to keep the state from interfering with the church while still allowing members of legislative bodies the ability to vote based on the morality that religion taught them. Some left-wingers would argue that religion should never come into a political decision, but considering that to many religion is morality (for better or worse), it's like asking many people to give up their notion of right and wrong when making a decision, which leaves very little for some people to base that decision on.

That said, there are some religious practices the state does control. If your religion requires you to sacrifice virgins, the state will not allow you to practice your religion, or at least it won't recognize it as a religious institution and will have you charged with first degree murder. That, however, is because even non-religious people tend to agree that murder is wrong. In situations where there is a less clear distinction between right and wrong, like wearing religious headgear in places where hats are not allowed, the state allows the religious freedoms of that particular congregation to come first.

I believe the decision on homosexuality and the family should be treated the same way. The state should not be dictating what we can and cannot do in our own congregation. If we want to perform religious ceremonies that are harmless by themselves, like a marriage of two people of the same-sex, it should be the decision of our congregation, not the big-wigs in Washington.

If the state wants to take a hand in marriage, it should divide marriage into two categories: the religious side and the state side. This in turn would remove the religious aspect of marriage from any state decision. Essentially, the state side of marriage would be a civil union. Any two people who want a civil union, age permitting, should be able to get one. It would simply be a service the government would provide. On the religious side, the state would be removed from the equation and churches would be free to act on the will of their congregation. If the congregation wants to affirm same-sex marriages it can, and if it doesn't want to, well it doesn't have to. By dividing marriage up into the two components, we allow religious freedoms to exist to an even greater extent than we currently do while still promoting a society of equality.

God created adam and eve not adam and steve. If god meant for people to get married to people of the same sex then he would not have created two sexes.

God created adam and eve not adam and steve. If god meant for people to get married to people of the same sex then he would not have created two sexes.
Lol silly troll :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: let me give you some hot man on man lovin :fluffle:

All those laws in Leviticus were directed at that particular and rather small primitive clan. The kosher laws were created because the learned men (mostly the religious leaders, as they were the only ones who had TIME to do any study) realized that certain things made people sick (such as eating pork and shellfish) and also knew that the best way to get people to stop eating what may have been the only meat available was to say "God says no!" which would hold much more weight. Various rules on how worship must be conducted kept people in line and following the orders of the religious rulers, and so on.

Similarly, a small tribe needs to have all of its members productive (read "breeding") to insure survival. Any war could wipe them out if there were not enough soldiers. Families needed many children to take over the farm and care for the elderly, especially since mortality rates were so high. To that end, any non-productive sexual act (homosexuality, masturbation, etc.) would be proscribed in an effort to keep all breeders breeding.

None of those rules apply to us today, we know how to cook food properly, we have certainly changed our basic forms of worship, and we are breeding at such a rate that we threaten to overrun the planet. Unfortunately, some of those rules are still viewed as sacred, even though they no longer apply

As a religious person, I'm sick and tired of the government trying to control my religious practices. It's pretty well agreed on the religious right that the seperation of church and state was designed to keep the state from interfering with the church while still allowing members of legislative bodies the ability to vote based on the morality that religion taught them. Some left-wingers would argue that religion should never come into a political decision, but considering that to many religion is morality (for better or worse), it's like asking many people to give up their notion of right and wrong when making a decision, which leaves very little for some people to base that decision on.

That said, there are some religious practices the state does control. If your religion requires you to sacrifice virgins, the state will not allow you to practice your religion, or at least it won't recognize it as a religious institution and will have you charged with first degree murder. That, however, is because even non-religious people tend to agree that murder is wrong. In situations where there is a less clear distinction between right and wrong, like wearing religious headgear in places where hats are not allowed, the state allows the religious freedoms of that particular congregation to come first.

I believe the decision on homosexuality and the family should be treated the same way. The state should not be dictating what we can and cannot do in our own congregation. If we want to perform religious ceremonies that are harmless by themselves, like a marriage of two people of the same-sex, it should be the decision of our congregation, not the big-wigs in Washington.

If the state wants to take a hand in marriage, it should divide marriage into two categories: the religious side and the state side. This in turn would remove the religious aspect of marriage from any state decision. Essentially, the state side of marriage would be a civil union. Any two people who want a civil union, age permitting, should be able to get one. It would simply be a service the government would provide. On the religious side, the state would be removed from the equation and churches would be free to act on the will of their congregation. If the congregation wants to affirm same-sex marriages it can, and if it doesn't want to, well it doesn't have to. By dividing marriage up into the two components, we allow religious freedoms to exist to an even greater extent than we currently do while still promoting a society of equality.

Man how many times in threads like these do I have to say this. The government is in no way trying to force you to accept homosexual marriage. The issue isn't about getting churches to marry gays or wheter or not it is right or wrong according to religious morality. The issue is that straight married couples have rights that homoseuxal couples do not get under a civil union. The state already has a hand in marriage and can perform them without any religious meaning or sanction. No one is asking you to change your views on homosexuality or even have your churches marry them. They only want the government to give them the rights that are afforded to straight couples. So take you their interfering with my religion arguement and please dont come back.

The solution is obviously to drop the word "marriage" from any governmental action, and instead have the priviledges conferred on any two people who apply. Essentially, everyone gets a civil union.

Then, marriage is defined by the people, and the couples can still get a tax break and next of kin rights, etc.

Everyone wins.

EDIT:

The kosher laws were created because the learned men (mostly the religious leaders, as they were the only ones who had TIME to do any study) realized that certain things made people sick (such as eating pork and shellfish) and also knew that the best way to get people to stop eating what may have been the only meat available was to say "God says no!" which would hold much more weight.
Or God simply said, "Because I say so." and didn't feel like explaining bacteria/virii to people still living in tents.

Man how many times in threads like these do I have to say this. The government is in no way trying to force you to accept homosexual marriage. The issue isn't about getting churches to marry gays or wheter or not it is right or wrong according to religious morality. The issue is that straight married couples have rights that homoseuxal couples do not get under a civil union. The state already has a hand in marriage and can perform them without any religious meaning or sanction. No one is asking you to change your views on homosexuality or even have your churches marry them. They only want the government to give them the rights that are afforded to straight couples. So take you their interfering with my religion arguement and please dont come back.

Read my whole post. It's pro-gay marriage.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

this is why christians have such a fit about gays.


And, yet, when you ask them why they'll eat ham, shave their beards and cut their hair, they'll say it's because Jesus abolished the old law .... just not that one, I suppose.

*shrug*

Anyway ...

I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.

I am a deeply religious person and I, also, am all for gay marriage. Though I'm not Christian.

Read my whole post. It's pro-gay marriage.

Thats nice now read my post its the government interfering in my religion arguement is bull****.

Thats nice now read my post its the government interfering in my religion arguement is crap.

Which is precisely why I recommend the separation of marriage into two institutions so we can confer the appropriate rights on gay couples and allow greater religious freedom. I still get this feeling you didn't read the whole thing.

EDIT: This is, in some ways, already true, but I think the lines should be drawn more clearly.

All those laws in Leviticus were directed at that particular and rather small primitive clan. The kosher laws were created because the learned men (mostly the religious leaders, as they were the only ones who had TIME to do any study) realized that certain things made people sick (such as eating pork and shellfish) and also knew that the best way to get people to stop eating what may have been the only meat available was to say "God says no!" which would hold much more weight. Various rules on how worship must be conducted kept people in line and following the orders of the religious rulers, and so on.

That's not entirely true. You can eat raw pork and be safe, so long as you know the pig was not infected. Trichinellosis are not natural to any animal. However, you can just as easily get it from a cow or chicken as you can a pig.

The ancient Hebrews knew quite a bit about blood born diseases and other things which they learned from the Egyptians - who were advanced enough in medicine to put many modern practices to shame.

The kashrut laws had nothing to do with keeping ignorant masses from doing stupid things.

Which is precisely why I recommend the separation of marriage into two institutions so we can confer the appropriate rights on gay couples and allow greater religious freedom. I still get this feeling you didn't read the whole thing.

Your option on seperating them has already been done in the form of civil unions which was ruled to be unconstitutional. And marriage is not inherently a religious institution. Its been around much longer then christianity and Judaism. Whats wrong with allowing the government to recognize that gays are married? Its not going to involve churches, priests or anything to do with the christian religion.

Your option on seperating them has already been done in the form of civil unions which was ruled to be unconstitutional. And marriage is not inherently a religious institution. Its been around much longer then christianity and Judaism. Whats wrong with allowing the government to recognize that gays are married? Its not going to involve churches, priests or anything to do with the christian religion.

Absolutely nothing.

My remarks were more geared towards things like the consitutional ban on gay marriage which I feel threatens my religious freedoms to attend a church that will marry gay people.

Your option on seperating them has already been done in the form of civil unions which was ruled to be unconstitutional. And marriage is not inherently a religious institution. Its been around much longer then christianity and Judaism. Whats wrong with allowing the government to recognize that gays are married? Its not going to involve churches, priests or anything to do with the christian religion.
Bah, call them ALL civil unions. Then each individual can decide what "marriage" means. No fuss, no muss.

Bah, call them ALL civil unions. Then each individual can decide what "marriage" means. No fuss, no muss. From "we're getting married, yay!" to
"We're getting united, yay!"
Sounds very… fascistic :p

God created adam and eve not adam and steve. If god meant for people to get married to people of the same sex then he would not have created two sexes.

If God had intended for people to be bisexual, he would have created two sexes.

OH WAIT!


Real love is so scarce in these times, I believe that it should be cherished and nurtured.

I cant help but think that with all the evil in the world at present, whatever deity there may be has much more pressing matters than where someone wishes to out their penis. :cool:

Absolutely nothing.

My remarks were more geared towards things like the consitutional ban on gay marriage which I feel threatens my religious freedoms to attend a church that will marry gay people.

Just to play devils advocate here the constitutional ban on gay marriage would not in fact affect your religious freedom. The amendment deals with state marriages and would prohibit gays from attaining a state marriage and the rights associated with it. But in reality a constitutional ban on gay marriage is about as likely as prohibition happening again.

Real love is so scarce in these times, I believe that it should be cherished and nurtured.

Amen!

Which is precisely why I recommend the separation of marriage into two institutions so we can confer the appropriate rights on gay couples and allow greater religious freedom. I still get this feeling you didn't read the whole thing.

EDIT: This is, in some ways, already true, but I think the lines should be drawn more clearly.

This is absolutely true and the lines are already clear. Changing the name isn't going to make it any more clear - and it isn't going to make the fundies happy.

Just to play devils advocate here the constitutional ban on gay marriage would not in fact affect your religious freedom. The amendment deals with state marriages and would prohibit gays from attaining a state marriage and the rights associated with it. But in reality a constitutional ban on gay marriage is about as likely as prohibition happening again.

Good man. Not enough people play the devil's advocate. That was informative too. Anyway, from what I've seen we pretty much agree on this whole issue.

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?


I'm all for gay marriage too. As far as both people love each other, what does it matter? They're not hurting anyone! Legalise gay marriage, goddamnit!

However, I don't think that this should be the sole responsibility of the Church (I'm Catholic too, and recently got married). The Catholic Church consider marriage as the only acceptable way of having children. If a couple wish to marry and make the mistake of telling the priest that they don't ever want to have children, then the priest will not perform the ceremony, or can and probably will nullify the marriage if this is found out afterwards. We had to sign to say that we planned on having children, and that we were going to raise them in the Catholic church, and all this crap that you just say yes to even if you have no intention of doing whatever they're asking you to do.
This even stands when one partner is infertile and knows it, and doesn't tell the other until it's too late. In this respect, gay marriage cannot be accepted in the Catholic Church - you might have known this already though.

Anyway, I wish people would wake up to reality. Civil marriages don't have this breeding requirement, therefore there is nothing in there to say that gay marriage is an abomination, or that it is wrong in any way. Civil marriages should be legalised for gay people, it might not be exactly what they want, but the end result would be the same!

What confuses me is that, my age group is the largest in Ireland at the moment, and I know quite a large number of openly gay people, and straight people who support gay marriage, but if a referendum regarding gay marriage came up, it would probably be turned down. Sad that there's so much apathy, even when it comes to something we strongly support, we're not willing to make our voices heard...

Read my whole post. It's pro-gay marriage.I did, because I was seriously considering an angry response defending gay marriage until I saw the last paragraph of your post.

I believe the way we can and should get around the religious opposition to same sex marriage is to make separate distinctions for religious marriage and civil marriage and confer the rights of what we currently call 'marriage' on civil marriage. That's essentially giving the responsibilities previously attached to marriage to civil unions.

That removes the stigma of the government forcing religion to accept same sex marriage because the law wouldn't have any effect on religious marriages. It would also bring homosexual couples into legal parity with heterosexual couples. That may not make the virulently anti-gay very happy and that might not satisfy the stridently pro gay marriage crowd (the ones who possibly would force religions to conduct marriages for same-sex couples), but it ensures the separation of church and state and it brings gays and straights into some level of parity.

That's essentially what I've done in my NS country, though we use the term civil union rather than marriage.

Good man. Not enough people play the devil's advocate. That was informative too. Anyway, from what I've seen we pretty much agree on this whole issue.

Yea its an interesting issue. America always tends to have a minority it goes after in troubled times. Now we seem to have America taking its fear out on homosexuals and the Middle East.

John and Mary DON'T love each other. Ever seen Father Ted?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha!!!!

Those two are hilarious!

(I love Father Ted!!!)

I did, because I was seriously considering an angry response defending gay marriage until I saw the last paragraph of your post.
I consider it a hook. The conservatives think they have someone agreeing with them, and then BAM! It turns right around on them.

My mother is a pretty religious Catholic but she is for gay marriage. Catholics for gay marriage are not myths; they do exist.

I was raised to view everyone as equal, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, whatever. There is no reason to not let gays marry. They are people too. Preserving the sanctity of marriage is bullshit. Half of today's marriages end in divorce. My second cousin and his partner (I'm not sure if they're married or not) have been together longer than his (second cousin's) brother and sister-in-law, who have been married for like twenty something years.

Also, Leviticus shouldn't apply anymore. It said homosexuality and masturbation were bad because no kids came from them. And everyone wanted lots of kids to do work on the farms. Nowadays, it seems to me, from what I've heard, that the masturbation rule has been thrown out and I have a feeling if it started to be enforced a lot of people would have problems. :D

I like the civil unions thing. Personally I'd rather have one because then I wouldn't be bound by the rules of a religion.

Fresh2death: The name "Steve" didn't exist back then. So it would have been Adam and _____. Anyway, if Adam was the first dude and there was no other, then it sounds necessary to me to make a woman so they can procreate. They didn't have in vitro then. Also God loves everyone. Even gays. :) And idiot trolls like yourself. But that's okay, I forgive you.

Wow, that was a pretty good argument, for someone who doesn't believe half of it. But Fresh2death being an idiot still stands.

Mmkay .... let's make this simple.

100 people in a room.

Ok ... everyone who is married, raise your hands.

60 people raise their hands.

Ok ... of you people, how many of you got married in a church or religious ceremony?

40 people raise their hands.

Ok ... of you people, how many of you got married without being required to register a State issued marriage license?

The point? ALL marriages in the United States are civil unions regardless of where the ceremony takes place or the words that are spoken. As a matter of fact, no ceremony is required at all ... just the proper signature on the proper State issued piece of paper.

In the United States, marriage is not a religious issue. Never has been ... never will be.

Mmkay .... let's make this simple.

100 people in a room.

Ok ... everyone who is married, raise your hands.

60 people raise their hands.

Ok ... of you people, how many of you got married in a church or religious ceremony?

40 people raise their hands.

Ok ... of you people, how many of you got married without being required to register a State issued marriage license?

The point? ALL marriages in the United States are civil unions regardless of where the ceremony takes place or the words that are spoken. As a matter of fact, no ceremony is required at all ... just the proper signature on the proper State issued piece of paper.

In the United States, marriage is not a religious issue. Never has been ... never will be.
Exactly. Now someone remind the fundamentalists.

Exactly. Now someone remind the fundamentalists.

Meh ... may as well talk to a bowl of warm cottage cheese.

Meh ... may as well talk to a bowl of warm cottage cheese.

Cottage cheese doesn't have more of a say in the American government than I do.

Cottage cheese doesn't have more of a say in the American government than I do.

If you're a liberal, it might. ;)

If you're a liberal, it might. ;)

I'm Canadian. I make liberal Americans look like the fundamentalist right in terms of influence over what goes on down there.

I've yet to meet a Christian who believes that being a homosexual is a sin. You can't help it.


have you met me yet? homosexualality is a sin and im a christian... sorry for your put down.

have you met me yet? homosexualality is a sin and im a christian... sorry for your put down.
Why is it a sin?

Cottage cheese doesn't have more of a say in the American government than I do.

I am English. And I am a supporter of the Conservative party (right-wing) but I think that Christianity plays too big a role in the Republican party? Is it just me or should religion and politics be separate? I am Christian but make no attempts whatsoever to impose my views on other people. Not that I disagree with gay marriage anyways. Love is the only thing that matters.

Fundamentalist Christianity is a larger force in America partly due to the party affiliation with the Republicans. However as a 16 year old English person, please correct me if I am wrong.

The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. And only people intent on following the exact word of the Bible or Qu'ran (or other religious book - included for political correctness, which is now the norm in England :rolleyes: ) would disagree with it.

Just because a group of religious people (aka. the GodSquad) dont agree with something, doesnt mean they can impose their views on a country filled with people of differing and sometimes no faith. In the Uk, the majority of people are not practising Christians and as such the small number that are should not be allowed to decide what the laws concerning such big issues are.

In America, I feel that tolerance is a longer way away than here in England but that remains to be seen.

Looking forward to hearing your responses. Will not be offended if my statements are inaccurate concerning Republicans.

:fluffle:

have you met me yet? homosexualality is a sin and im a christian... sorry for your put down.

So something that you have no personal choice in is a sin? Is sweating a sin? How about menstruation? Is it a sin that I have hair growing on various parts of my body?

have you met me yet? homosexualality is a sin and im a christian... sorry for your put down.


How can something that you have no control over be a sin? (Sorry for repeating what you just said Dempublicents1!)

So something that you have no personal choice in is a sin? Is sweating a sin? How about menstruation? Is it a sin that I have hair growing on various parts of my body?


wtf? why would you go gay anyways? wtf is the point? this world is losing its morals...
this is a sick world people, my friend, (unamed) was asked out by another guy today!! :eek: ! omg. if thats not wrong then what is right now in days.
ohh and how can you not have control over being gay???

wtf? why would you go gay anyways? wtf is the point? this world is losing its morals...
this is a sick world people, my friend, (unamed) was asked out by another guy today!! :eek: ! omg. if thats not wrong then what is right now in days.
ohh and how can you not have control over being gay???

Let's try again: why is being gay wrong?

Why is it a sin?


it is cuase i say it is :rolleyes:

People should be allowed to discover their own sexuality. It's as simple as that.

Let's try again: why is being gay wrong?


why is it right? comon people not only but 50 years ago we had more morals... why is ti wrong? well, its not right in my eyes lets put it that way (i dont want to argue this is my pov).

it is cuase i say it is :rolleyes:

Oh. Well then. Touché.

Seriously, I don't understand why people say it's wrong. I'm not even gay. I just don't get it.

wtf? why would you go Christian anyways? wtf is the point? this world is losing its morals...
this is a sick world people, my friend, (unamed) was asked out by a Christian today!! :eek: ! omg. if thats not wrong then what is right now in days.
ohh and how can you not have control over being Christian???


Corrected.

why is it right? comon people not only but 50 years ago we had more morals... why is ti wrong? well, its not right in my eyes lets put it that way (i dont want to argue this is my pov).

50 years ago you had morals? Bullshit. 50 years ago segregration was a fact, and black people were lynched. More morals.. what a crock of...

Being gay is no choice, nor is it wrong.

This isn't a sick world. People like you try to make this world sick.

I'm Canadian. I make liberal Americans look like the fundamentalist right in terms of influence over what goes on down there.

Pfft ... not this liberal American, you don't. :p

<snip>
ohh and how can you not have control over being gay???
Well, it could be genetic(though I doubt that), it could be caused by other biological factors, or it could have something to do with some psychological factor other than choice. Perhaps it is even a little bit out of

Personally, I could care less whether it is choice or not, but if one is going to ask me, I feel that in many cases it is not.

Hypothetical:
Do you think you could 'go gay'? Do you think you could make yourself fall in love with someone of the same gender? Do you think you could find fulfillment in sexual contact with others of the same gender as yourself?

well, its not right in my eyes lets put it that way (i dont want to argue this is my pov).

Well it is right in my eyes. Note that my way causes less hate in the world, which is generally a good thing. What does your way do?

ohh and how can you not have control over being gay???

A friend of mine once told me of a lesbian he knew. She grew up in a small town where if you were gay, they knew about it and would not take kindly to it. They might even react violently.

All her life she tried to be straight. She dated men, and tried to love them. She couldn't not be gay though. Even though her life was in danger if people found out she were gay she just couldn't become straight.

A friend of mine once told me of a lesbian he knew. She grew up in a small town where if you were gay, they knew about it and would not take kindly to it. They might even react violently.

All her life she tried to be straight. She dated men, and tried to love them. She couldn't not be gay though. Even though her life was in danger if people found out she were gay she just couldn't become straight.

Similiar to one year of my life.. I lived in Argentina, and believe it or not.. society is not opened. When I was 15.. I tried to be "straight".. I even tried dating a girl... I just couldn't. I knew it was wrong for me and I knew I was interested only in guys. Trying to be "straight" almost drove me to depression.

I can't stand people that say you can change your sexuality. I lived in a country where GLBT people got locked up by police and tortured for it.

wtf? why would you go gay anyways? wtf is the point? this world is losing its morals...
this is a sick world people, my friend, (unamed) was asked out by another guy today!! :eek: ! omg. if thats not wrong then what is right now in days.
ohh and how can you not have control over being gay???

You can't "go gay". You either are gay, or you are not gay. Just like you either are straight, or you are not straight.

You have no control over being gay in much the same way as you have no control over being straight. You don't decide to be attracted to someone - you just are.

Sexual attraction is a physical process just like sweating, menstruating, etc.

The scripture has no bearing on secular law.

If you want to stop gay marriage you can't use religious law as the reason.

The basis for secular law in America comes from scripture. Why does the government condemn murderers and thieves? It is because the Ten Commandments are the basis of these laws. The moral codes of the Western world is all down to Christianity. Not many people seem to realise this.

The basis for secular law in America comes from scripture. Why does the government condemn murderers and thieves? It is because the Ten Commandments are the basis of these laws. The moral codes of the Western world is all down to Christianity. Not many people seem to realise this.

Absolutely not. Most of these laws and morals come from law codes that were written far before the bible was written. That's a fact. The punishments against robbery and murder for example, have been enforced far before the christian bible. So your argument is completely invalid. The moral codes of the Western World come from ancient civilizations that believed in polytheistic religions. You don't seem to realize the facts. And how is secular law tied to religion anyways? Sheesh, grow some common sense.

why is it right? comon people not only but 50 years ago we had more morals... why is ti wrong? well, its not right in my eyes lets put it that way (i dont want to argue this is my pov).

I don't know about morals, but I'm pretty sure people could write coherently at least... :rolleyes:

The basis for secular law in America comes from scripture. Why does the government condemn murderers and thieves? It is because the Ten Commandments are the basis of these laws. The moral codes of the Western world is all down to Christianity. Not many people seem to realise this.

Not entirely, numerous nations now possess constitutional laws that contravene biblical dictation, such as the inerdiction of capital punishment. Furthermore, marriage in itself is a civil service, a legally binding contract o unson, and the church's involvement is entirely optional. It is accordingly reasonable to allow same sex marriages, whilst the bible was penned in, as their name implies, biblical times, and its legal intricacies are intended for that purpose. Numerous biblical commandments are percieved as irrelevant in the modern world, and given the propensity of homosexual individuals and couples in western society, why is it considered a necessity to maintain the laws relating to homosexuality?

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?

Marriage = 1 man , 1 woman. Holy bond of love, and designed for making us go on.

Show me and man/man or woman/woman couple that can have kids on their own without help from science and Ill buy your argument it was intended. even by nature it wasnt.

Im naturally this way is bull. folks make the choice. same old debate.

Just because a dog finds it natural to go about humping everyones leg doesnt mean I should be allowed to do that to any women that catches my eye right ?

Religions that are caving in to this are doing so for one reason alone. The leaders got in it for the money as so many do. And they want those tithes.

why is it right? comon people not only but 50 years ago we had more morals... why is ti wrong? well, its not right in my eyes lets put it that way (i dont want to argue this is my pov).

oh look ! It's one of those people that stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala, i cant hear you" when you happen to disagree with them.


In my not so humble opinion, churches should get out of the legal side of marriage completely, in all countries. The gov marries people for the law (legal benefits etc) and couples can choose to get married in a church aswell, although doing this doesnt convey any legal rights whatsoever. It's been separated like this in the netherlands for many years, and even hardcore christians think this is a good idea, due to the way applying for a rental house works, you get an advantage when your married. ( religious couples have a civil marriage, wait till they have a house and have their religious wedding before moving in together)
Gay marriage is also legal here, although many churches wont perform ceremonies for gay couples.

Marriage = 1 man , 1 woman. Holy bond of love, and designed for making us go on.

Show me and man/man or woman/woman couple that can have kids on their own without help from science and Ill buy your argument it was intended. even by nature it wasnt.

Im naturally this way is bull. folks make the choice. same old debate.

Just because a dog finds it natural to go about humping everyones leg doesnt mean I should be allowed to do that to any women that catches my eye right ?

Religions that are caving in to this are doing so for one reason alone. The leaders got in it for the money as so many do. And they want those tithes.

Marriages was actually designed to have a legal way for men to own women, now if your smallminded enough to want to own a woman/be owned by a man, i guess i can see your point.
Bottomline: marriage was a civil institution looooong before religion hijacked it.

Marriage = 1 man , 1 woman. Holy bond of love, and designed for making us go on.

Show me and man/man or woman/woman couple that can have kids on their own without help from science and Ill buy your argument it was intended. even by nature it wasnt.

Marriage was not meant for procreation. And it isn't holy (secular marriage that is). You cannot limit my rights. And you cannot call me unnatural. I'm sorry, but your argument is crap.

Im naturally this way is bull. folks make the choice. same old debate.

My.. what an ignorant childish person.... no argument from Tyma as usual. Sexuality isn't a choice and that has been proven numerous times.

Just because a dog finds it natural to go about humping everyones leg doesnt mean I should be allowed to do that to any women that catches my eye right ?

Slippery fucking slope. I'm not in the mood right now to argue with people who display such ignorance.

Religions that are caving in to this are doing so for one reason alone. The leaders got in it for the money as so many do. And they want those tithes.

Yeah well... maybe they want to play dress up like the pope too. Those campy gowns and hats must cost a bit and if they wanna popemobile too...

wtf? why would you go gay anyways? wtf is the point? this world is losing its morals...
this is a sick world people, my friend, (unamed) was asked out by another guy today!! :eek: ! omg. if thats not wrong then what is right now in days.
ohh and how can you not have control over being gay???

Not to take this onto a personal level, but who's using the family braincell at present, is it Jimmy out shooting on the plains, or the local grand wizard who has just begun the weekly lynching? One can have no control over one's sexuality because it is a genetically programmed, inherent characteristic of a human being, and is unalterable, as i your utter lack of intelligence. Incidentally, will your future wife be required to remian by the kitchen sink and cooker at all times, or give birth to at least a dozen children?

Not to take this onto a personal level, but who's using the family braincell at present, is it Jimmy out shooting on the plains, or the local grand wizard who has just begun the weekly lynching? One can have no control over one's sexuality because it is a genetically programmed, inherent characteristic of a human being, and is unalterable, as i your utter lack of intelligence. Incidentally, will your future wife be required to remian by the kitchen sink and cooker at all times, or give birth to at least a dozen children? I'd just like to say that it's not totally genetic, it's probably very much influenced by environmental factors like most characteristics.
However, to anyone who says it's a choice - can you imagine yourself making the choice to ditch those beautiful women and go for hideous ugly male bodies instead? No, thought not.

have you met me yet? homosexualality is a sin and im a christian... sorry for your put down. Quote a single verse, any verse, from either the Bible OR the Qu'ran, that homosexual tendencies are sinful. It isn't said anywhere.

However, to anyone who says it's a choice - can you imagine yourself making the choice to ditch those beautiful women and go for hideous ugly male bodies instead? No, thought not.

Excuse me, I find the male body (again, depends on the person) far more beautiful then the body of a woman.

Excuse me, I find the male body (again, depends on the person) far more beautiful then the body of a woman.

Woman are a work of art
Men are apes with hairloss issues

But please, be gay, more women for me.

;)

:fluffle:

Excuse me, I find the male body (again, depends on the person) far more beautiful then the body of a woman.


http://www.macmorgan.com/images/manboobs.jpg
Does this do anything for you?

Woman are a work of art
Men are apes with hairloss issues

But please, be gay, more women for me.

;)

:fluffle:

Excellent one on the generalizations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/610000/images/_610070_fatpeople300.jpg - Work of art huh?

There are plenty of handsome gay men I like... I think gay guys take better care of themselves.

Does this do anything for you?


Again EXCELLENT ON THE DAMN GENERALIZATIONS.

Maybe you should see the shape I'm in.. I already have definition on my body after some work..

Excuse me, I find the male body (again, depends on the person) far more beautiful then the body of a woman. Exactly, therefore not a choice. My point proved. :)

I already have definition on my body after some work..

Why work out when you can have cleavage?! :D

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?
As a Holy Roman Catholic myself, I understand and agree with you. However do not loose heart, refer to His Holiness Pope John Paul I "Our God is God of Love, in his own words we are commanded to before all else love our neighbours as we love ourselves".

Before every dogma, doctrine, Papal decree, and Bible verse is this one truth. Love thy neighbour as you love yourself.

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?

Welcome to NS :D
I'm catholic too, not the most practising of catholics because I think the Chruch is an out dated load of ..., but thats just my opinion and no disrespect to your beliefs. As already explained the definiton of marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman so the chruch should have no problem with civil unions! Its quite ironic the catholic chruch probably has one of the highest number of gays in any profession...but thats not talked about :eek: shhhhhhhhhh

As a Holy Roman Catholic myself, I understand and agree with you. However do not loose heart, refer to His Holiness Pope John Paul I "Our God is God of Love, in his own words we are commanded to before all else love our neighbours as we love ourselves".

Before every dogma, doctrine, Papal decree, and Bible verse is this one truth. Love thy neighbour as you love yourself. Love hasn't got anything to do with whether you allow gay marriages or not.

Why work out when you can have cleavage?! :D

I like actual definition.

Love hasn't got anything to do with whether you allow gay marriages or not.
Yes it does. Because the foundation of marriage is love. The Church cannot stand against allowing homosexuals to marry if they do so for love. That is the point. And I pray to St Jude that our Holy Father will be enlightened by this.

Yes it does. Because the foundation of marriage is love. The Church cannot stand against allowing homosexuals to marry if they do so for love. That is the point. And I pray to St Jude that our Holy Father will be enlightened by this. You could argue that adultery is "love", but it's obviously a bad thing, and the Church doesn't support it with good reason.

Who is… St. Jude? I know virtually nothing about the saints. :)

Marriage = 1 man , 1 woman. Holy bond of love, and designed for making us go on.

Show me and man/man or woman/woman couple that can have kids on their own without help from science and Ill buy your argument it was intended. even by nature it wasnt.



I guess we should throw birth control in the bin right?
According to your logic it serves no good to the human race.

To take it a step further, maybe we should ban marriage to infertile couples, they can't "make us go on" without the help of evil Mr. Science...

Hell, why don't we just reactivate Hitlers T-4 program, that should get rid of anybody that could contaminate the gene pool...

\o/ Warning: Hidden Sarcasm inside \o/

You could argue that adultery is "love", but it's obviously a bad thing, and the Church doesn't support it with good reason.

Who is… St. Jude? I know virtually nothing about the saints. :)

Adultery is not love because adultery normally involves one of the partners (the faithful one) getting hurt. Hurting others is bad. Therefore, adultery is bad.

If you can show me any way in which two happily married gay guys or girls hurt anybody, I'll revise my stand on the issue.

Adultery is not love because adultery normally involves one of the partners (the faithful one) getting hurt. Hurting others is bad. Therefore, adultery is bad.

If you can show me any way in which two happily married gay guys or girls hurt anybody, I'll revise my stand on the issue. Well, one could argue that it is like smoking - not harmful to anyone else, but harmful to oneself. This is why I'm still out on whether the government should legalise civil unions… I don't think Rome is likely to, tbh.

Well, one could argue that it is like smoking - not harmful to anyone else, but harmful to oneself. This is why I'm still out on whether the government should legalise civil unions… I don't think Rome is likely to, tbh.

Homosexuality causes lung cancer? Or what is it you are saying? In what way would they hurt each other?

Well, one could argue that it is like smoking - not harmful to anyone else, but harmful to oneself. This is why I'm still out on whether the government should legalise civil unions… I don't think Rome is likely to, tbh.

Quite evidently, since it would contravene the bible, its legal cornerstone. Furthermore, in what respect is being gay harmful to oneself, I was somewhat under the impression that those who hide their sexulity and maintain a facade of heterosexuality suffer from immense depression, and are likely to commit suicide, while open homosexuals are generally content.

Excellent one on the generalizations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/610000/images/_610070_fatpeople300.jpg - Work of art huh?

There are plenty of handsome gay men I like... I think gay guys take better care of themselves.

the ;) smiley normally means people are joking you know.

And i was aware of the awesome generalization i made with my statement, i was under the assumption you had a sense of humour, silly me i supose....

Homosexuality causes lung cancer? Or what is it you are saying? In what way would they hurt each other? Metaphorical lung cancer, just like premarital sex does, 'cos it's outside the bonds of marriage.

Quite evidently, since it would contravene the bible, its legal cornerstone. Furthermore, in what respect is being gay harmful to oneself, I was somewhat under the impression that those who hide their sexulity and maintain a facade of heterosexuality suffer from immense depression, and are likely to commit suicide, while open homosexuals are generally content. Pretending you're something you're not is indeed harmful and depressing. Not a good idea at all, I agree.

Metaphorical lung cancer, just like premarital sex does, 'cos it's outside the bonds of marriage.

I fail to see in what manner either are harmful, unless one accepts and acts upon the hysterics of a protestant church that is convinced that for one to enter heaven, one must live a thoroughly chaste and beneficient life upon earth. In Britain such illusions are no longer maintained, and the church has assumed a modern stance upon issues that are esentially modern, and yet all those who engage in pre-marital sex or homosexual love are not smote by Jehova with thunderbolts in retribution.

Metaphorical lung cancer, just like premarital sex does, 'cos it's outside the bonds of marriage.

:confused: :confused:

Ive had lots of premarital sex...yet im completely healthy

What are you going on about ? ?

Metaphorical lung cancer, just like premarital sex does, 'cos it's outside the bonds of marriage.

So let me get this straight. Gays are harming themselves because they have sex outside marriage. And because this is harmful, they can never get married?
:confused:

Looks like they loose either way... oh, and btw, why would sex outside marriage be harmful in the first place?

I fail to see in what manner either are harmful, unless one accepts and acts upon the hysterics of a protestant church that is convinced that for one to enter heaven, one must live a thoroughly chaste and beneficient life upon earth. In Britain such illusions are no longer maintained, and the church has assumed a modern stance upon issues that are esentially modern, and yet all those who engage in pre-marital sex or homosexual love are not smote by Jehova with thunderbolts in retribution. The Church of England is weak and its voice is unheard and unheeded. But that's beside the point, and something you'd expect me to say.

The Church of England is weak and its voice is unheard and unheeded. But that's beside the point, and something you'd expect me to say.

Quite, I happen to be a Catholic if anything, and the CofE is weak,and its compromise on issues of faith and morality has reduced its appeal. However the point I allude to is that Bible belt America is regressed, socially and morally, and repressive consequentially, whereas Brtain legalises homosexual marriages as a civil service, and the majority accept such a legality. Homosexual marriage neither affects nor harms you, and one ought not to interfere in such affairs if they do not concern you.

whereas Brtain legalises homosexual marriages as a civil service, and the majority accept such a legality. Just like to point out: it hasn't yet. Has it? I didn't think it had.

Just like to point out: it hasn't yet. Has it? I didn't think it had.

Would you mind explaining in what way premarital sex is harmful?

And if sex only is harmful if it is premarital, but harmless once married, and society refuses to let gays marry, isn't society ultimately comitting a great sin against them?

Would you mind explaining in what way premarital sex is harmful?

And if sex only is harmful if it is premarital, but harmless once married, and society refuses to let gays marry, isn't society ultimately comitting a great sin against them? Using that logic, you could argue that all teenagers must be married off to prevent them from sinning. (That's probably been done before)

*gathers notes* Something to do with the sanctity of marriage, I believe.

Using that logic, you could argue that all teenagers must be married off to prevent them from sinning. (That's probably been done before)

*gathers notes* Something to do with the sanctity of marriage, I believe.

No, teenagers outgrow their teens eventually. Gays never outgrow their sexual orientation.
And it was your statement I quoted there, please elaborate what you meant by it.

No, teenagers outgrow their teens eventually. Gays never outgrow their sexual orientation.
And it was your statement I quoted there, please elaborate what you meant by it. Which statement where? Do you mean the one about England's laws?

Using that logic, you could argue that all teenagers must be married off to prevent them from sinning. (That's probably been done before)

*gathers notes* Something to do with the sanctity of marriage, I believe.

The sanctity of marriage is only relevant if one views marriage as a religious, not civil service. Marraige in the legal context is a binding contract of unison, nothing more, and is accordingly as sanctified as any other legal contract, and to my mind the Bible, expansive though it is, does not quote "Blessed are legally binding and ratified contracts".....

The sanctity of marriage is only relevant if one views marriage as a religious, not civil service. Marraige in the legal context is a binding contract of unison, nothing more, and is accordingly as sanctified as any other legal contract, and to my mind the Bible, expansive though it is, does not quote "Blessed are legally binding and ratified contracts"..... That's why I said premarital sex was wrong. I was talking from a religious perspective.

Originally Posted by Cabra West
Homosexuality causes lung cancer? Or what is it you are saying? In what way would they hurt each other?
Metaphorical lung cancer, just like premarital sex does, 'cos it's outside the bonds of marriage.

That quote. Cmparing premarital sex with lungcancer, and using it as an argument to discredit gay marriage/love as harmful.

That quote. Cmparing premarital sex with lungcancer, and using it as an argument to discredit gay marriage/love as harmful. No, I didn't compare it with lung cancer, I compared it with metaphorical lung cancer, hijacking what you'd thought I'd said. It's harmful because it undermines the sanctity of marriage… everything has a place. That's basically why.

No, I didn't compare it with lung cancer, I compared it with metaphorical lung cancer, hijacking what you'd thought I'd said. It's harmful because it undermines the sanctity of marriage… everything has a place. That's basically why.

Well, how can it undermine the sanctity of marriage? Eiher gays are included in that sanctity, then they get married and nothing's harmful whatsoever, or else they aren't included, in which case the sanctity of marriage doesn't affect them and cannot be affected by them.
Which is it to be?

That's why I said premarital sex was wrong. I was talking from a religious perspective.

And yet you cannot propose to imply that if your faith dictates that something is morally false, the same applies to all.

Well, how can it undermine the sanctity of marriage? Eiher gays are included in that sanctity, then they get married and nothing's harmful whatsoever, or else they aren't included, in which case the sanctity of marriage doesn't affect them and cannot be affected by them.
Which is it to be? The sanctity of marriage does count in that situation, because it's still premarital sex.

I'm new here.

Some really good points have already been made.
It's how we were born, we can't change it.

Whether your straight,gay,lesbian,trans...be happy and proud of who you are. :D

And yet you cannot propose to imply that if your faith dictates that something is morally false, the same applies to all.

Plus, if you agree with the idea that the highest teaching of your faith is "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself" you cannot deny anybody something that is harmless to all and everybody simply because you feel it is wrong. You would not be following your faith if you did.

The sanctity of marriage does count in that situation, because it's still premarital sex.

Premarital implies that they would be able to get married at some stage. They can't. Therefore it's not premarital and doesn't affect marriage in any way.

The sanctity of marriage does count in that situation, because it's still premarital sex.

There is no such thing as sanctity of marriage. Marriage is a simple legal contract.

Plus, if you agree with the idea that the highest teaching of your faith is "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself" you cannot deny anybody something that is harmless to all and everybody simply because you feel it is wrong. You would not be following your faith if you did. When did I ever say love was wrong? When did I say men couldn't love each other, or women couldn't love each other? Men should love each other more!

[EDIT/] Alright, extramarital.

Premarital implies that they would be able to get married at some stage. They can't. Therefore it's not premarital and doesn't affect marriage in any way.

Entirely true.

When did I ever say love was wrong? When did I say men couldn't love each other, or women couldn't love each other? Men should love each other more!

No, you missed my point there. You are tryingto deny others a right without any reason. Therefore, you don't love them the way you should.

No, you missed my point there. You are tryingto deny others a right without any reason. Therefore, you don't love them the way you should. Is it a right, though? Why is it a right?

No, you missed my point there. You are tryingto deny others a right without any reason. Therefore, you don't love them the way you should.

Once more entirely true

Is it a right, though? Why is it a right?

Because every adult is allowed to do it.

I did, because I was seriously considering an angry response defending gay marriage until I saw the last paragraph of your post.

I believe the way we can and should get around the religious opposition to same sex marriage is to make separate distinctions for religious marriage and civil marriage and confer the rights of what we currently call 'marriage' on civil marriage. That's essentially giving the responsibilities previously attached to marriage to civil unions.

That removes the stigma of the government forcing religion to accept same sex marriage because the law wouldn't have any effect on religious marriages. It would also bring homosexual couples into legal parity with heterosexual couples. That may not make the virulently anti-gay very happy and that might not satisfy the stridently pro gay marriage crowd (the ones who possibly would force religions to conduct marriages for same-sex couples), but it ensures the separation of church and state and it brings gays and straights into some level of parity.

That's essentially what I've done in my NS country, though we use the term civil union rather than marriage.

Who of us wants to force religions to give us the "marriage" title

You wont find many

But we DO want the right to have OUR religion (if we choose one that allows gay marriage) to have the ability to confer the title to us as well.

So in the end this would still be opening the ability for gay MARRIAGE too … it would just be an extra step for both hetro and homo couples

Because every adult is allowed to do it. Well, um, you've just answered your own question. It's a universal right.

Is it a right, though? Why is it a right?
All citizens have the right (in America) to be equal under the law. The Supreme Court established (several decades ago) that the freedom to marry under the law is meaningless if it does not include the freedom to choose one's spouse. According to our laws, any consenting adult should be permitted to enter into a marriage contract with any other consenting adult, and the government does not have the right to refuse to recognize a union simply because of skin tone, facial structure, genital conformation, or similar traits.

Is it a right, though? Why is it a right?
“life liberty and the pursuit of happiness …” you have to have a CLEAR objective reason of denying someone the last two parts of that
Religion irregardless of its supposed truth is NOT objective … it is subjective in nature.

You cant prove with any sort of accuracy beyond faith that homosexual marriage will have a harmful effect

As such you have absolutely NO reason to continue the discrimination in the secular government



Also you may want to brush up on the tenth amendment

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"

And as the state has no objective reasoning to remove the right to free marrige the rights should fall on THE PEOPLE themselfs

Well, um, you've just answered your own question. It's a universal right.

Correct. So on what grounds do you deny it to homosexuals?

A thought that always amuses me on this subject.

And please no-one take offence at this, it is just my marginally twisted view, with a mildly humourous bent...

There is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Now, anyone who knows their genetics, would imagine that such a gene, because it does not lead to procreation, would select itself out of the gene pool. However, because society insists gays marry teh opposite gender, and thus procreate, the gene persits in the population. To me, the irony is absolutely beautiful, the religious right's efforts are actually doing more harm to their cause than good! (Though generally speaking, the same people tend to regard science as little more than a nuisance...)

My own view is that marriage should be a right for everyone, I respect the rights of all individuals.

A thought that always amuses me on this subject.

And please no-one take offence at this, it is just my marginally twisted view, with a mildly humourous bent...

There is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Now, anyone who knows their genetics, would imagine that such a gene, because it does not lead to procreation, would select itself out of the gene pool. However, because society insists gays marry teh opposite gender, and thus procreate, the gene persits in the population. To me, the irony is absolutely beautiful, the religious right's efforts are actually doing more harm to their cause than good! (Though generally speaking, the same people tend to regard science as little more than a nuisance...)

My own view is that marriage should be a right for everyone, I respect the rights of all individuals. Ever heard of recessive traits?

A thought that always amuses me on this subject.

And please no-one take offence at this, it is just my marginally twisted view, with a mildly humourous bent...

There is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Now, anyone who knows their genetics, would imagine that such a gene, because it does not lead to procreation, would select itself out of the gene pool. However, because society insists gays marry teh opposite gender, and thus procreate, the gene persits in the population. To me, the irony is absolutely beautiful, the religious right's efforts are actually doing more harm to their cause than good! (Though generally speaking, the same people tend to regard science as little more than a nuisance...)

My own view is that marriage should be a right for everyone, I respect the rights of all individuals.

The people of Samsonica endorse this analysis of the situation in every respect

There is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Now, anyone who knows their genetics, would imagine that such a gene, because it does not lead to procreation, would select itself out of the gene pool. However, because society insists gays marry teh opposite gender, and thus procreate, the gene persits in the population.

rofl ... cute.

I'm sure you already are aware that society cannot determine genes and that many gay people want children (adoption, surrogacy, etc), but it made me chuckle nonetheless.

:D

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?

While I cannot speak for those who are not living within a libertine governmental form: For those of us in the US, I can. I believe it stems from an inability of the people to dis-associate religious and political ideology.

In moral consideration, homosexuality (including lesbianism) is sinful. And I do not personally endorse, nor approve of that lifestyle.

Politically, I live in a society (and believe in the base principles of that society) that all men are free; and enjoying personal liberty. And that government only exists to prevent harm upon one from another in that society.

Religiously, I oppose any action for my church to endorse or partake in the marrital vows of same-sex unions.

Politically, I support the right of same-sex partners to marry; and for any other religious organization to partake (if it is the wish of that institution).

That being said, I support the rights and liberties of same-sex partners persuant to marriage.... But I oppose any action by my religious institution to commit to such (within the institution itself).

If everyone adopted this view, or similar; their would by little contention on this issue....

While I cannot speak for those who are not living within a libertine governmental form: For those of us in the US, I can. I believe it stems from an inability of the people to dis-associate religious and political ideology.

In moral consideration, homosexuality (including lesbianism) is sinful. And I do not personally endorse, nor approve of that lifestyle.

Politically, I live in a society (and believe in the base principles of that society) that all men are free; and enjoying personal liberty. And that government only exists to prevent harm upon one from another in that society.

Religiously, I oppose any action for my church to endorse or partake in the marrital vows of same-sex unions.

Politically, I support the right of same-sex partners to marry; and for any other religious organization to partake (if it is the wish of that institution).

That being said, I support the rights and liberties of same-sex partners persuant to marriage.... But I oppose any action by my religious institution to commit to such (within the institution itself).

If everyone adopted this view, or similar; their would by little contention on this issue....


Marry me :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

While I cannot speak for those who are not living within a libertine governmental form: For those of us in the US, I can. I believe it stems from an inability of the people to dis-associate religious and political ideology.

In moral consideration, homosexuality (including lesbianism) is sinful. And I do not personally endorse, nor approve of that lifestyle.

Politically, I live in a society (and believe in the base principles of that society) that all men are free; and enjoying personal liberty. And that government only exists to prevent harm upon one from another in that society.

Religiously, I oppose any action for my church to endorse or partake in the marrital vows of same-sex unions.

Politically, I support the right of same-sex partners to marry; and for any other religious organization to partake (if it is the wish of that institution).

That being said, I support the rights and liberties of same-sex partners persuant to marriage.... But I oppose any action by my religious institution to commit to such (within the institution itself).

If everyone adopted this view, or similar; their would by little contention on this issue.... That's the direction which I'm currently veering towards… however, I'm still not sure about it… :p

Here is a few comments i thought i would make. (i basically agree with Tekania)

I dont believe homosexuality is completely genetic. I have spoken to people who identify themselves as being ex-homosexual. These men once felt homosexual urges, but do so no longer and are happily married. They went from homosexual relationships over a long period, to a heterosexual relationship. These men put their homosexuality down to a troubled childhood, especially with their fathers, and some of them were sexually abused. Now im not saying homosexuality cannot be genetic, just that it isnt always genetic, it can be affected by environmental factors.

In Australia, defacto's (unmarried couple, heterosexual or homosexual) after a period of 12months, or if there is a child involved, are given the same legal rights as married couples. The only thing that does not change is their name, which can easily be done through depol. For some reason, however, there is still pressure from some groups for the legalisation of gay marriage. I personally dont know why there is. They have the same legal rights, they could change their names, and they could even have some kind of service to celebrate it without actually getting married, but for some reason, that piece of paper means something to them, regardless of what others may say.

Biblically, homosexual practiced is sustained as a sin in the New Testament by Romans 1:26, and other places, i just couldnt be bothered finding them (just ask if you want me to). Its always tricky for Christians to use Leviticus, as it contains many laws that are irrelevant to the Christian as Jesus fulfilled many of these laws and made them unnecessary - he declared many practices clean, and in Acts, all foods are declared clean. Throughout the New Testament, many practices are declared to be fulfilled and no longer necessary as part of the New covenant. Homosexuality, however, is still regarded as a sin.

In terms of 'love your brother as yourself', to the Christian, this is preluded by the other part of the summary of the law, which is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37), and if you love the Lord, you will do what he says (John 14:15 & 23). This means the Christian will endeavour not to commit homosexual sins. I believe the Bible is pretty clear on this, if you disagree, feel free to pm me about it for more Biblical references.

In regards to homosexuality generally from my personal christian perspective, homesexuality is a sin just like i see stealing, coveting, or causing my fellow man or woman to do wrong. Homosexuals are no more or less a sinner than I am, and God forgives all of us for our sins. Unfortunately many churches and christians are too opposed to homosexuals and unloving and uncaring and they fail to explain that they too are just as sinful and that they believe they need God's grace as well.

In terms of marriage, I dont believe the Church should allow homosexual marriages, and I believe that Christians should be vocal about these issues. In democratic countries, we have as much of a right of voicing our opinions as those who are for homosexual marriage. If, in the democracy, the people decide to allow homosexual marriages, then we should accept that decision and allow that to be done, just not within a Christian institution. Basically, i think Christians should be vocal about issues within societies, but respect the political rights of others and allow them to exercise these rights outside the church.

I have spoken to people who identify themselves as being ex-homosexual. These men once felt homosexual urges, but do so no longer and are happily married. They went from homosexual relationships over a long period, to a heterosexual relationship. These men put their homosexuality down to a troubled childhood, especially with their fathers, and some of them were sexually abused. Now im not saying homosexuality cannot be genetic, just that it isnt always genetic, it can be affected by environmental factors.

There is no such thing as ex-gay people. I'm sorry but that's just nonsense, and to say that sexuality is tied to a troubled childhood.. well that's also nonsense. Now I'm saying that those people were most likely straight all along or bisexual. You can cover it up all you want, it won't change. So you just take their word on it?

I never said homosexuality was entirely genetic.

And jsut to say, wrt surrogacy/adoption, in both cases, the children aren't genetically related, and even if the gene is rescessive, it will still start to select itself out.

But i think for most people, it's the rights of the individuals that matter... gay marriage does not affect anyone else, not even Christians, so there is no real reason not to allow it, in today's supposedly free societies.

Although it is only in the last half century that homosexuality has become more public - and legal - and generally more accepted, there have always been homosexuals, and I imagine there always will be.
There would have been prehistoric homosexuals - gay cavemen, horrid images... - and being gay is perfectly normal. Therefore, if it is natural and normal - which it is - why is it wrong?

Turn it on it's head, and look at it this way: Why is being a hetero NOT wrong???

Answer that one, if you will.

God created adam and eve not adam and steve. If god meant for people to get married to people of the same sex then he would not have created two sexes.

God also crated people who prefer to enjoy relionships with those of the same sex, I am a practicing Chirstian, this does not mean i have to take every word of the bible as being a literal instruction.

God created adam and eve not adam and steve. If god meant for people to get married to people of the same sex then he would not have created two sexes.
GET NEW MATERIAL, WINGNUTS!!!!!

Here's a flashback to the last century:

"If God meant for black people and white people to intermarry, he wouldn't have created different races."

New hatred, same stupid arguments. Just because you invented a God who's a nosy, insecure, hateful idiot doesn't mean our laws should be as petty as your imaginary sky-daddy.

There is no such thing as ex-gay people. I'm sorry but that's just nonsense, and to say that sexuality is tied to a troubled childhood.. well that's also nonsense. Now I'm saying that those people were most likely straight all along or bisexual. You can cover it up all you want, it won't change. So you just take their word on it?

I believe no one has the authority to say what you just said. How do you know that there is no such thing as ex-gay people? Being homosexual is a completely personal experience and a very subjective thing. There is no substantial evidence that says homosexuality cant be changed, or that it is genetic or that people cant go from being homosexual to being heterosexual. People often go from being heterosexual to homosexual all the time, why cant it work the same way?

You are saying honest well meaning men who admit they spent 20 years in homosexual relationships and admit that they saw those relationships as being better than heterosexual relationships, and engaged sexually in those relationships, were actually heterosexual all the time? I can understand that because of the social stigma, some people with homosexual tendencies may try to stay in heterosexual relationships to try and avoid being abused and mistreated by society, but why would a person who was actually heterosexual choose to live as a homosexual, and engage sexually in this lifestyle?

Once again i just want to say, as far as society goes, Christians should respect the rights of others and if the law allows it, accept the fact that they choose to get married, and grant them the love and respect they would give any other non-Christian couple. I think however, the Bible makes it pretty clear what its stand on homosexuality is, and if you are a Bible believing Christian, you are ignoring the word of God.

For non-christians who dont care, thats fine, i say politically and socially, people should support the rights of homosexuals to get married. Society is not under religious law. It is under secular law, and if the people will it, then homosexual marriage should be allowed and respected. I just also think that christians and other people who disagree with homosexual law should be allowed to share their views just like everyone else can in a democratic society.

I believe no one has the authority to say what you just said. How do you know that there is no such thing as ex-gay people? Being homosexual is a completely personal experience and a very subjective thing. There is no substantial evidence that says homosexuality cant be changed, or that it is genetic or that people cant go from being homosexual to being heterosexual. People often go from being heterosexual to homosexual all the time, why cant it work the same way?

There is no such thing as people changing. There is also a such thing as bisexuality. I'm tired of people as yourself saying that people can change. It isn't subjective. This is based on some cold hard facts. There is plenty of evidence to say that sexuality cannot be changed. Damn christians who think it can be changed...

I can understand that because of the social stigma, some people with homosexual tendencies may try to stay in heterosexual relationships to try and avoid being abused and mistreated by society, but why would a person who was actually heterosexual choose to live as a homosexual, and engage sexually in this lifestyle?

You don't seem to understand bisexuality or the facts really. I don't think anyone can choose their sexuality or attractions. I need to start seeing some facts and not the typical dribble.

I think however, the Bible makes it pretty clear what its stand on homosexuality is, and if you are a Bible believing Christian, you are ignoring the word of God.

I'm not a christian and I could care less about the damn bible.

"Can't change" and "Can't be changed" are subtly, but critically, different from each other.

Sexuality obviously changes, for instance, before a child emerges from the womb it has no sexuality at all. And there are things that can hard-wire a human brain into thinking in different ways... they're generally pretty extreme, but they do exist.

As sexuality is in all probability, a combination of genetic and environmental factors, then if the environmental factors do change, then it is concievable that so would sexuality, although as I say, things would have to be pretty extreme.

There have, however, been reports of brainwashing gays into being straight... I don't know the details, but that sounds pretty extreme enough to me.

That said, in general, these things don't change, and certainly not by choice (although I did once meet someone who said she was "bi- because it's more fun that way). It is not possible, or at least, not at all easy, to choose your sexuality, contrary to some's belief (usually certain straight people not understanding, or refusing to understand, that being gay isn't a choice) and that is certain. However, social pressures may still result in a certain amount of people appearing to change, as they come to understand themselves.

So the conclusion of this long winded, and probably useless post: People in general don't change sexualities, and can't choose them, but never say never.

In Christianity some laws of the old testament(sp) don't have to be followed, because of Christ's sacrifice. But homosexuality is phohibited in the new testament(sp), therefore christians must follow it.

However, I don't think gay marriage should outlawed, because of the principle of Seperation of Church and State. If you think Seperation of Church and State is a bad idea, Osama agrees with you. When you ban it you don't accomplish anything but giving christianity a negative image.

[QUOTE=Commustan]In Christianity some laws of the old testament(sp) don't have to be followed, because of Christ's sacrifice. But homosexuality is phohibited in the new testament(sp), therefore christians must follow it.[/quoe]

State where.

State where.

Some of Paul's letters, I believe. Damned homophobic nutcase. The new testamtent would be a great book to follow if it wasn't for his hateful contribution to it.

I believe no one has the authority to say what you just said. How do you know that there is no such thing as ex-gay people?

Because the methods used by "ex-gay" organizations have been shown, time and time again, to be complete and utter crap. Because "ex-gay" individuals come forward all the time, admitting they actually were gay the whole time and were simply repressing. This is not to say there could never be an "ex-gay" person anywhere, but it does make one quite skeptical.


Being homosexual is a completely personal experience and a very subjective thing. There is no substantial evidence that says homosexuality cant be changed, or that it is genetic or that people cant go from being homosexual to being heterosexual.

Actually, there IS substantial evidence that adult sexuality does not change dramatically (i.e. from heterosexual to homosexual), and there is significant evidence that homosexuality is partially genetic. There is also a mountain of evidence that "ex-gay" programs are utter failures and frauds that lead to suicides more often than "successful conversions."


People often go from being heterosexual to homosexual all the time, why cant it work the same way?

Because they don't go from being heterosexual to homosexual. They were homosexual the whole time, but BEHAVED as a heterosexual due to societal pressures. It's like how you (I'm assuming you are straight) could choose to have sex with a person of the same gender; you wouldn't normally do this, and you wouldn't really be attracted to them if you were forced to do it, but you COULD if you were given the appropriate motivation. Homosexuals are so reviled in our culture that many people would rather live a lie for their entire lives than risk anybody finding out they are gay. Some of them manage to find the courage to come forward and be honest with themselves and with the world, but that doesn't mean their sexuality changed...they were always gay, they just weren't telling.


You are saying honest well meaning men who admit they spent 20 years in homosexual relationships and admit that they saw those relationships as being better than heterosexual relationships, and engaged sexually in those relationships, were actually heterosexual all the time?

No, we're saying that if a man was in a 20-year gay relationship and suddenly decides he's straight, there's something else going on in his head. Use YOUR head, for crying out loud, it's a little too obvious for me to believe you really don't get this.

Furthermore, remember that engaging in heterosexual or homosexual sexual acts does NOT make one a heterosexual or homosexual. Don't define sexuality that way. It will save you a lot of trouble.


I can understand that because of the social stigma, some people with homosexual tendencies may try to stay in heterosexual relationships to try and avoid being abused and mistreated by society, but why would a person who was actually heterosexual choose to live as a homosexual, and engage sexually in this lifestyle?

EXACTLY. That's the point. A person who is innately heterosexual isn't going to say, "Gee, it would be fun to be hated, persecuted, and insulted by the majority of society, and to expose myself and my lover to continued social stigma and legalized oppression! I think I'll be gay!" So if you find somebody who claims they were gay for years and then "realized" they were really straight all the time, what do you suppose might be going on?

Could it be that they reached a breaking point, and are tired of all the hate and the ridicule and the repressive society? Could it be that they have been traumatized by growing up gay in a society that hates them, and they've decided it's easier to tow the company line than to continue fighting society at every step? Could it be that their family has been pressuring them relentlessly to become straight, to "settle down" and have a "real family," and they really want to please their loved ones? Could it be that they are simply afraid, since we currently have a government that doesn't seem to mind when violence against gays is incited by powerful public figures? No...I guess they really must be a straight person, and they just decided to be gay for FUN. That must be it.


Once again i just want to say, as far as society goes, Christians should respect the rights of others and if the law allows it, accept the fact that they choose to get married, and grant them the love and respect they would give any other non-Christian couple. I think however, the Bible makes it pretty clear what its stand on homosexuality is, and if you are a Bible believing Christian, you are ignoring the word of God.

True. If you are a Bible-believing Christian and you believe it's wrong to have drunken sex with your children, you're also ignoring the word of God. If you're a Bible-believing Christian who thinks little girls shouldn't be impregnated by men in positions of enormous power, you are ignoring the word of God. If you are a Bible-believing Christian and you think it's wrong for troops to rape and enslave civilian women during wartime, you're ignoring the word of God.

Of course, if you're a Bible-believing Christian, you believe women are dirty because the First Woman took dietary advice from a talking snake (which I'm sure wasn't supposed to be a penis metaphor, not in the least). So you have plenty of sexual problems of your own to deal with, and you probably should leave the gays alone while you work your issues out.


For non-christians who dont care, thats fine, i say politically and socially, people should support the rights of homosexuals to get married. Society is not under religious law. It is under secular law, and if the people will it, then homosexual marriage should be allowed and respected. I just also think that christians and other people who disagree with homosexual law should be allowed to share their views just like everyone else can in a democratic society.
You absolutely can share your views. And we absolutely can tell you that you're the same as all the sexists and racists throughout history, who have long had a love affair with using religious texts to justify personal ignorance, fear, and hatred.

There is no such thing as ex-gay people.

I have to disagree.... I've known many former homosexuals who have changed to become heterosexual. Humans are most capable of changing their behavior if they so wish, and are not pre-programmed robots, incapable of determining the course of their own life.

There is no such thing as people changing. There is also a such thing as bisexuality. I'm tired of people as yourself saying that people can change. It isn't subjective. This is based on some cold hard facts. There is plenty of evidence to say that sexuality cannot be changed. Damn christians who think it can be changed...

People are capable of changing.... That is a cold hard fact... Including their sexuality... We are not robotic monsters, incapable of deciding our own courses...


You don't seem to understand bisexuality or the facts really. I don't think anyone can choose their sexuality or attractions. I need to start seeing some facts and not the typical dribble.

Oh, we understand the facts just perfectly, you however do not. There has never been any credible study which has found sexuality as genetic or ingrained. PEOPLE ARE FUCKING CAPABLE OF CHANGING, that is prooven, PEOPLE DO CHANGE THEIR SEXUALITY, that is a fact. Anything else you raise, just proceeds from your conscience choice to ignore reality for the benefit of your idiotic personal (and dangerous) ideologies. You're really no different than a Fundamentalist....

I have to disagree.... I've known many former homosexuals who have changed to become heterosexual. Humans are most capable of changing their behavior if they so wish, and are not pre-programmed robots, incapable of determining the course of their own life.
Oooh, anecdotal evidence from an annonymous internet poster! Now THAT'S convincing.

Oooh, anecdotal evidence from an annonymous internet poster! Now THAT'S convincing.

All I ask if for morons like you to actually look around, instead of burying your tiny little heads in the sand.... Refutation from idiots trying to use American Quackriatric Association studies to proove their points? Get a fucking life.... And stop treating people like robots, you pedantic little twit.

All I ask if for morons like you to actually look around, instead of burying your tiny little heads in the sand.... Refutation from idiots trying to use American Quackriatric Association studies to proove their points? Get a fucking life.... And stop treating people like robots, you pedantic little twit.

/sigh

And ocne again the anti-gay crowd feels the need to resort to personal attacks....

Can't you people get it into your <bleep> heads that your views are so antiquated that they NO LONGER APLY !

Oh, we understand the facts just perfectly, you however do not. There has never been any credible study which has found sexuality as genetic or ingrained. PEOPLE ARE FUCKING CAPABLE OF CHANGING, that is prooven, PEOPLE DO CHANGE THEIR SEXUALITY, that is a fact. Anything else you raise, just proceeds from your conscience choice to ignore reality for the benefit of your idiotic personal (and dangerous) ideologies. You're really no different than a Fundamentalist....

If you forgive my asking... why would they want to change?
I mean, imagine you're a straight guy, and girls really really turn you off. What motivation would you have to try and find something attractive that's simply revolting to you?

All I ask if for morons like you to actually look around, instead of burying your tiny little heads in the sand.... Refutation from idiots trying to use American Quackriatric Association studies to proove their points? Get a fucking life.... And stop treating people like robots, you pedantic little twit.

Your arguments will be (slightly) more credible without the personal attacks.

And there is no such thing as an 'ex-homosexual'. Anyone who claims they are, was either never homosexual in the first place or still is, but is simply repressing their instincts and urges. Saying you can change your sexual orientation is like saying you can change the colour of your eyes. You can slap coloured contacts over them and pretend you have, say, bright green eyes instead of brown, but the colour underneath doesn't change.

If I wanted to, I could stop screwing blokes and go around screwing women instead (as unappealing as that prospect is) and call myself 'straight'. I could even get married and have kids with one if I wanted to. This wouldn't make me any less homosexual, and it wouldn't make me heterosexual (even if I claim differently) it would just make me a homosexual who screws women and lies.

People are capable of changing.... That is a cold hard fact... Including their sexuality... We are not robotic monsters, incapable of deciding our own courses...

So if people can change their sexuality, why bother actually having one? Wouldn't we all be omnisexual then?

And if people can change, why do so many need therapy to do so?

People are capable of changing.... That is a cold hard fact... Including their sexuality... We are not robotic monsters, incapable of deciding our own courses...

No they aren't in this regard. You don't understand the facts. Sexuality is ingrained in you, and you cannot change it.

Oh, we understand the facts just perfectly, you however do not. There has never been any credible study which has found sexuality as genetic or ingrained. PEOPLE ARE FUCKING CAPABLE OF CHANGING, that is prooven, PEOPLE DO CHANGE THEIR SEXUALITY, that is a fact. Anything else you raise, just proceeds from your conscience choice to ignore reality for the benefit of your idiotic personal (and dangerous) ideologies. You're really no different than a Fundamentalist....

You need to get some facts, and stop insulting other people. There has never been a credible study showing that people can change. In fact the APA and AMA agree with me, saying that sexuality cannot be changed. People can't change their sexuality. You are a fundamentalist it seems, a pretty nasty one on that matter. And you never have any facts.

I have dangerous ideologies? That's totally false. My ideologies respect human rights. And that is a fact. You ignore the reality. And in fact I think you're a closet homosexual, because you are saying the same things I said when I was 15.

All I ask if for morons like you to actually look around, instead of burying your tiny little heads in the sand.... Refutation from idiots trying to use American Quackriatric Association studies to proove their points? Get a fucking life.... And stop treating people like robots, you pedantic little twit.
Hehe. So you're one of the nutters who thinks Ex-Gay Ministries are more reliable sources than the APA, huh? And you say WE are burying our heads in the sand?

What is it about solid research and supported data that terrifies you people so? Are you really so in love with hating on "teh gayz" that you feel the need to extend your loathing to anybody who presents credible research on the subject?

[QUOTE=Commustan]In Christianity some laws of the old testament(sp) don't have to be followed, because of Christ's sacrifice. But homosexuality is phohibited in the new testament(sp), therefore christians must follow it.[/quoe]

State where.
1 Corinthians 6:9

Hehe. So you're one of the nutters who thinks Ex-Gay Ministries are more reliable sources than the APA, huh? And you say WE are burying our heads in the sand?

What is it about solid research and supported data that terrifies you people so? Are you really so in love with hating on "teh gayz" that you feel the need to extend your loathing to anybody who presents credible research on the subject?

The APA is made up of Psychiatrists, not scientists (Psychiatry is not a hard science... there is no such thing as absolutes, as they so unscientifically make claims to).

Humans are capable of changing their behavior; we are not bound to operations based on hard-wired "instincts".

The very fact that homosexuals have changed their behavior; as have heterosexuals, bisexuals, etc. prooves any assertion based upon the hard-assertions made falsely by "soft-science" (aka Psychiatry).

Anyone who uses APA studies to define absolutes, no longer is operating with facts, or logic. Scientific method requires all evidence be analyized...... APA studies throw out datum that does not mesh with their presupposition... THAT IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!!!! The APA is not a scientific institution... And it cannot make absolute assertions.

I make no connection with attempts by others at forceful change... People can change their behavior by operations of their own will (not by external force)... People are more determinative in their course of will by personal experiences, as opposed to hard-wired "instinct". Humans are not creatures of "instinct"... we are thinking, reasoning beings, capable of leading our lives through the course of our own personal choices. I need no "instinctive" justification for homosexual styles, their lifestyle is their own choice, and is not of harm to others => needs no justification. And neither is a bisexual's or heterosexuals. Why you and nut-job, as well as a portion of the rest of society seem to need a justification for it, is beyond me.

The APA is made up of Psychiatrists, not scientists (Psychiatry is not a hard science... there is no such thing as absolutes, as they so unscientifically make claims to).
There aren't really absolutes in science as well. Only the best solution for the question at the present time.

Humans are capable of changing their behavior; we are not bound to operations based on hard-wired "instincts".

The very fact that homosexuals have changed their behavior; as have heterosexuals, bisexuals, etc. prooves any assertion based upon the hard-assertions made falsely by "soft-science" (aka Psychiatry).
You need to back these claims up with sources. Otherwise your just spouting off unsubsantiated claims.

Anyone who uses APA studies to define absolutes, no longer is operating with facts, or logic. Scientific method requires all evidence be analyized...... APA studies throw out datum that does not mesh with their presupposition... THAT IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!!!! The APA is not a scientific institution... And it cannot make absolute assertions.
Proof?

I make no connection with attempts by others at forceful change... People can change their behavior by operations of their own will (not by external force)... People are more determinative in their course of will by personal experiences, as opposed to hard-wired "instinct". Humans are not creatures of "instinct"... we are thinking, reasoning beings, capable of leading our lives through the course of our own personal choices. I need no "instinctive" justification for homosexual styles, their lifestyle is their own choice, and is not of harm to others => needs no justification. And neither is a bisexual's or heterosexuals. Why you and nut-job, as well as a portion of the rest of society seem to need a justification for it, is beyond me.
Once agian you need proof to back this up. I could go around saying being gay isnt a choice all I want but unless I have proof to back it up it means nothing.

No they aren't in this regard. You don't understand the facts. Sexuality is ingrained in you, and you cannot change it.

You need to get some facts, and stop insulting other people. There has never been a credible study showing that people can change. In fact the APA and AMA agree with me, saying that sexuality cannot be changed. People can't change their sexuality. You are a fundamentalist it seems, a pretty nasty one on that matter. And you never have any facts.

I have dangerous ideologies? That's totally false. My ideologies respect human rights. And that is a fact. You ignore the reality. And in fact I think you're a closet homosexual, because you are saying the same things I said when I was 15.

I am not a fucking fundamentalist... You're ideologies reduce people to unthinking hard-wired machines of instinct, and you expect me to think that respect? Bull fucking shit....

The APA and AMA are not scientific institutions... They cannot make absolute assertions, and the fact that you listen to absolute's from soft-science institutions, already makes any claim of yours utter bullshit...

People can change their sexual orientation.... That is not opinion... [b]IT FUCKING HAPPENS[/i].... All I need is a single case of one going through it, to proove the APA wrong, I, have seen SEVERAL cases...

Human sexuality and identity is a product of several factors, any only a FEW of them are "physical" in nature, as being a part of their bodily "makeup"... the rest are sociological and mental.... People are capable of changing a large portion of this, and effect behavioral change.... THIS FUCKING HAPPENS... GET IT THROUGH that 50 meters of solid granite you call a skull.

I am not a fundamentalist, the only "fundamental" I know of, is the freedom and liberty of people to make determinations in the course of their own lives... Which people do ALL THE FUCKING TIME... regardless of what it is... Humans are not fucking robots..... You've got more in common with these fundamentalists you so fraudulently try to group me in with, than I fucking do....

Yes, your ideology is "dangerous".... mostly because it is based of of ignorant presuppositions, and unscientific study by unscientific groups such as an APA and AMA... Talk to REAL scientists, or sociologists (which at least keep to their place in soft-science, as opposed to the special-interest idiots misusing their fields of study, such as the AMA/APA)...

In short, much like the APA, you're guilty of fraud, and hereby removed...

There aren't really absolutes in science as well. Only the best solution for the question at the present time.


You need to back these claims up with sources. Otherwise your just spouting off unsubsantiated claims.


Proof?


Once agian you need proof to back this up. I could go around saying being gay isnt a choice all I want but unless I have proof to back it up it means nothing.

Proof is all around you in the countless people who have made choices to change their sexual orientation.... Merely because you refuse to recognize the ir decision, automatically makes your own claims, relying on the unscientific studies put out by quack organizations such as the APA/AMA fraud.

Science puts forth theories which best fit the available facts.... It is a FACT people change their sexual orientation, their sexual identity, and countless other sociological constructs, every-fucking-day, which prooves that any study which claims the behavior is "hard-wired" is fraudulent.

Proof is in the society around you, merely because you don't have enough guts to look at it, and choose to remain blind, does not give you credence...

You too, are gone...

Proof is all around you in the countless people who have made choices to change their sexual orientation.... Merely because you refuse to recognize the ir decision, automatically makes your own claims, relying on the unscientific studies put out by quack organizations such as the APA/AMA fraud.
You are making an arguement on a forum. To say look around you and you'll see I'm true is a horrible way to respond to a request for proof.

Science puts forth theories which best fit the available facts.... It is a FACT people change their sexual orientation, their sexual identity, and countless other sociological constructs, every-fucking-day, which prooves that any study which claims the behavior is "hard-wired" is fraudulent.
And I am asking you where you have gotten your facts from. I want to see the studies and the accounts of people who changed their sexual identity so that if I do make a decision on such a subject I have looked at all the available evedince. If I say its a fact that all the people who say they have changed really havent and that all you have to do to see that I am right is look around your going to say my arguement is crap.

Proof is in the society around you, merely because you don't have enough guts to look at it, and choose to remain blind, does not give you credence...
And unfortunately for you your on a forum where if your going to make an arguement you want to back it up with credible sources. You havent.

You too, are gone...
I asked for proof and you failed to provide me with any. If anything I'm not gone just someone who wants to look at all the evedince of both sides.

God created all things. Apparently he created all things heterosexual. Am I right so far?
Why this: Change of the Heterogametic Sex From Male to Female in the Frog?
http://euplotes.biology.uiowa.edu/web/sexpapers/2004/week13/frogs.pdf

Wouldn't God find this revolting and not "create" it?

You are making an arguement on a forum. To say look around you and you'll see I'm true is a horrible way to respond to a request for proof.


And I am asking you where you have gotten your facts from. I want to see the studies and the accounts of people who changed their sexual identity so that if I do make a decision on such a subject I have looked at all the available evedince. If I say its a fact that all the people who say they have changed really havent and that all you have to do to see that I am right is look around your going to say my arguement is crap.


And unfortunately for you your on a forum where if your going to make an arguement you want to back it up with credible sources. You havent.


I asked for proof and you failed to provide me with any. If anything I'm not gone just someone who wants to look at all the evedince of both sides.


1. The APA's own issued factsheet: Issued May of 2000...

“Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

Dr. Byrns and Parsons of CU (former members of the APA) had this to say in 1993 in the Archives of General Psychiatry...


There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from substantiating body of experimental data.

They were later ousted by the APA (even though the APA affirmed their statements later)

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, wrote )a noted Psychiatrist):

We will see later the falsity of activists’ repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.

In his book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth".

In his 1997 study, UCLA-Berkley pschologist Marc Breedlove summed up his study concluding that sexual activity in mice actually change brain construct (not the other way around):


These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. You can’t assume that because you find a structural difference in the brain, that it was caused by genes. You don’t know how it got there.

In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.

In short, it has been attempted to "proove" homosexuality is hard-wired based upon:

1. Hormone Levels... refuted
2. Brain Development.... refuted
3. Genetic studies.... refuted
4. Eye blinking patterns.... refuted
5. Inner Ear Differences... refuted
6. Finger length.... refuted

People "want" it to be "hard-wired", so it's of no surprise when people jump all over these "studies" when they come out... Even though they have been shot -down time and time again...

There need be no "Hard-wired" trait that determines a person sexual orientation.... It's a person's choice, created by numerous factors, internal and external to the person.... And there need be no "hard-wired" trait to justify attacking discrimination on the issue... Discrimination over personal non-harmful life-style choices, is wrong period...

Also note, that I became a "Fundamentalist Homophobe" the moment I discredited their debunked ascertions of homosexuality being a "hard-wired genetic trait that is unchangable".... Even though, as was plainly stated by me before, I in no way seek discrimination upon homosexuals (ref post here)... They will do that to anyone who questions their "faith" in their absurd and unscientific claims.... (and they call ME a fundamentalist!)

There is no more credibility to "hard-wired" sexual-orientation ideology, than there is to Intelligent Design theories of YEC and OEC creationists...

If you forgive my asking... why would they want to change?
I mean, imagine you're a straight guy, and girls really really turn you off. What motivation would you have to try and find something attractive that's simply revolting to you?

Some do... Not saying all do.... But I've actually seen some do.... They do it because they "Want" to... just as much as they didn't "want" to before then... It's a matter of what their personal choice is, and they should be accepted for that choice....

The need for some "genetic hard-wired trait" to govern this, is a false-construct, and a refuted claim...

snip...
You seem to be saying that the debate on the gay gene is over. It is far from it. A quick search on Google should inform you of this. You have your beliefs and opinions but, as of yet, they are not fact.

Some do... Not saying all do.... But I've actually seen some do.... They do it because they "Want" to... just as much as they didn't "want" to before then... It's a matter of what their personal choice is, and they should be accepted for that choice....

The need for some "genetic hard-wired trait" to govern this, is a false-construct, and a refuted claim...

Well, I'm bisexual so I have a hard time imagining either side whe it comes to extremes, but I would find it absolutely impossible to feel attrackted to - for argument's sake - a child. It's not just morals that would stop me, it's the simple fact that while I am capable of loving a child, I wouldn't be able to associate anything sexual with that.
However, if your argumentation is correct, I could somehow make myself attrackted to almost anything, human animal or plant. And that's just what I have a hard time believing.

I don't know how much your know about behavioural biology, but birds' sexual preferences for example are shaped at a very early age and are oriented towards who or what they perceive as their parents; this experience is indelible at any later stage. The zoo in Leipzig for instance used to have a peacock that was hatched with some turtle eggs, as his parents were incapable of doing that themselves. In later years, that peacock would completely ignore female peacocks and kept trying to mate with turtles instead.
Now, I'm not saying that humans are equally extreme regarding events in their early childhood, but I personally assume that homosexuality has its roots right there, and that it is extremely difficut if not entirely impossible to overcome that early influence permanently in later years.

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?

I am also Catholic. I am against it. Read the First letter of Paul to the Cornithians CAREFULLY to see why.

You seem to be saying that the debate on the gay gene is over. It is far from it. A quick search on Google should inform you of this. You have your beliefs and opinions but, as of yet, they are not fact.

There is no conclusive study linking homosexuality to some "magic gene".... I need no more proof... It is up to the other side to proove people cannot change.... Not for me to proove they can... I don't need to proove they can, because people do all the time... It's as simple as that... Xq28 is not the "magic bullet".... Simply because there is a higher relative presence of the signature in homosexual males, than females; it has absolutely no bearing on female homosexuality (lesbianism), and it is both present in some heterosexual males, and not present in some homosexual males... Studies of twins, also leads to a highly proportionate case of homosexuality (~48%), however that still leaves more than 1/2 the cases where twins are divergent in sexual identity (Even when have the exact same genes....).....

Sorry, there simply is no "magic genetic bullet"..... People are a product of many factors, and genetics merely being one of them... There simply is no "hard-wired" aspect to it... Humans are complex creatures, and development their personality and other such traits through genetics, sociology, and many other enviromental factors.

Merely because I do not support the false claims of this "magic bullet" certain groups want (note there are many homosexuals who do not accept hard-wired sexuality any more than I)... does not make their claims valid.... The evidence heavily supports homosexuality as a broad orientation from multiple sources, that has no predictable or definitive "cause".... And I accept the preponderance of evidence. And my own eyes (having seen people alter their life-styles before).

Regardless whether it is genetic or not (and the evidence leans heavily to "not"), there is no valid rational for advocating the forceful attempt to "convert" homosexuals, or discriminate on such basis.... And such concerns should be rightly handled sociologically, and not through attempts at pseudoscience...

There need be no "Hard-wired" trait that determines a person sexual orientation.... It's a person's choice, created by numerous factors, internal and external to the person....

It is well accepted that being Gay is not hardwired but there is probably a genetic component. (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html) However, just because something is not hardwired does not mean it is a choice. I can speak from personal did not choose to be heterosexual and atracted to my wife (though I did choose to act on that attraction). Perhaps the best example would be height: height is based upon a wide variety of things some genetic some enviromental and there is no hard-wired trait that determines a person's height. (I've met identical twins who were 5'9" and 6'2" respectively) However, your final height is not a choice (If it was I would have added another couple inches) except in the most general sense that if you choose to eat well and take care of your body you will be taller than if you did not. Still it's hard to imagine someone 5'3" would have become someone 6'3" if they ate their vegatibles so there is deffinately limits to the "choice"

Who here is actaully against gay marriage?

They are beginning to prove it.

"Recently, a plethora of research has been done on determining brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Simon LeVay's work on the anterior hypothalamus is the most widely discussed and debated research in the area of sexual orientation and neuroscience. This paper will examine Simon LeVay's research which declares that there is a physiological difference between the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men (5). Furthermore, it will discuss the shortcomings of his research and the need for more conclusive studies on sexuality and its link to biology."

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html

It seems to me that there is more proof that there is a genetic factor than that there isn't. And what about the Frogs I mentioned before? And you seem to not believe in the ability for a human to be bisexual. Or do you? Tell me, does a man who "turns himself hetero" simply discontinue being aroused by other men? If he's aroused, has he really converted?

And if you are, shouldn't you be living your own life instead of telling people what to do with theirs?

If you don't allow gays to marry, then you CAN'T allow hetrosexuals.
Its just NOT fair. End of story.

Hi, this is my first time posting on this message board, anyhow down to business.
I consider myself a religous person.
Yet I am for gay marriage.
Most people who are against gay marriage seem to claim a religous base for their beliefs. Yet I support gay marriage not despite my religion, but because of it. I'm Catholic by the way, and I realize that those in positions of authority in my faith may disagree with my amature attempt at theology. I was raised to believe in a loving God, and to love and respect one another. Thus love must be good. Yet if that is true than how can love between 2 gay people be a bad thing? Why shouldn't they be allowed to express their love through the sacred bond of marriage? I don't see how anyone who claims to be devoutly religious can be against gay marriage? Can anyone explain this to me?
Oh yeah, well I support gay marriage, despite my religious beliefs. I win at self-righteousness! :D :rolleyes:

All I ask if for morons like you to actually look around, instead of burying your tiny little heads in the sand.... Refutation from idiots trying to use American Quackriatric Association studies to proove their points? Get a fucking life.... And stop treating people like robots, you pedantic little twit.

You've been warned repeatedly, and you continue to flame others. Take a break from the forums, and learn to not insult people. Perhaps, read the rules in the Moderation forum.

Tekania: 4-Day Forumban for Flaming