NationStates Jolt Archive

These seem to be the emerging (reemerging, in the case of the latter) social concerns of this generation, but it is primarily the christians that are trying to limit other people's freedoms because of their own beliefs. I would just like to hear why people would oppose gay marriage: What is it to you that two people of the same sex get married? Why should you care? Why should they not get married because of your own beliefs? :confused: Same thing goes for early term abortion and abortion in cases of rape, endangerment of the mother, etc... Why should a woman not have full control over her body because of your beliefs? I'm interested to hear.

Not from this Christian you won't. You're absolutely right.

My guess is somthing in Leveticus and "gay people are icky" for gay marriage....I wouldn't know though....

I think they'd say the same reason you make murder illegal. You make laws to keep people from doing things that are immoral/have potential to hurt them/others.

This thread is stupid.

Why would a gay couple need an abortion?


:confused:


:p

I think they'd say the same reason you make murder illegal. You make laws to keep people from doing things that are immoral/have potential to hurt them/others.
In the case of gay marriage, who are they hurting? Definately not themselves, and obviously not anyone else, so why stop it?

I think they'd say the same reason you make murder illegal. You make laws to keep people from doing things that are immoral/have potential to hurt them/others.
Who does gay marriage 'hurt'?

Who decides what's immoral?

Making law on the basis of 'morality' is a dodgy thing to do, in my opinion.

Who does gay marriage 'hurt'?

Who decides what's immoral?

Making law on the basis of 'morality' is a dodgy thing to do, in my opinion.

All laws are based on morality in some form. The question is how unanimous the morality is.

This thread is stupid.

Why would a gay couple need an abortion?


:confused:


:p

if you would come out of your peniscentric haze you would realize that some gay couples are lesbians and where there are uteri there might well be unwanted embryos.

All laws are based on morality in some form. The question is how unanimous the morality is.
I would be much happier if all laws were based on "how does this action affect other peoples wellbeing and rights?", rather than "do I like this or not?"

I am a conservative Christian. I try not to let my beliefs screw up other people's lives. ;)

I guess I can't answer.

All laws are based on morality in some form. The question is how unanimous the morality is.

Well, I think a lot of laws are originally based on common sense.

I would be much happier if all laws were based on "how does this action affect other peoples wellbeing and rights?", rather than "do I like this or not?"

Which is not a moral stance because?

I am a conservative Christian. I try not to let my beliefs screw up other people's lives. ;)

I guess I can't answer.
Well of course there are the rare exceptions :D

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

Which is not a moral stance because?
Because it doesn't take into account the feelings of people, rather the possibilty of infrigement upon their rights. Lets people do anything that doesn't infringe upon the rights of another individual.

Still a bit based in morality, but not half as much.

I would be much happier if all laws were based on "how does this action affect other peoples wellbeing and rights?", rather than "do I like this or not?"

In the end it's the same thing. You like people's well-being and what you believe are their rights. Luckily for you, so does almost everyone, though they might argue about the specific rights involved. Thus, that's what most laws get based on.

Well, I think a lot of laws are originally based on common sense.

Common sense only makes sense if you have a goal of some sort to pursue.

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

Same thing with religion. Should we ban religious marriages?

In the end it's the same thing. You like people's well-being and what you believe are their rights. Luckily for you, so does almost everyone, though they might argue about the specific rights involved. Thus, that's what most laws get based on.

Not really. It would eliminate any law concerning something that doesn't infringe upon somebody else. Like drugs, gun control, abortion, marriage laws etc.

Like I said; still based somewhat in morality (for the rights), but not half as much as law is now.

Not really. It would eliminate any law concerning something that doesn't infringe upon somebody else. Like drugs, gun control, abortion, marriage laws etc.

Like I said; still based somewhat in morality (for the rights), but not half as much as law is now.

It's just a different morality. You find not infringing on others to be a good thing and infringing in some ways as being a bad thing. That's a moral stance. It's a less restricitive moral stance, it's probably a more correct moral stance (if you can ever determine such things) but it's still a moral stance.

It's just a different morality. You find not infringing on others to be a good thing and infringing in some ways as being a bad thing. That's a moral stance. It's a less restricitive moral stance, it's probably a more correct moral stance (if you can ever determine such things) but it's still a moral stance.
Did you read the last line in my post?

Where I acknowledged it was still based in morality, but noted that it wasn't as based in morality as things are now?

*thanks Vegas-Rex, passes cookie*

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

Define "normal."

I know someone who puts ketchup on her Cool Ranch Doritos. In my opinion, that's very abnormal. Why should this be allowed when homosexual marriages are not?

When you create laws based only on what is normal, you end up with a population who can only reflect the status quo.

Oh, and sometimes homosexuality/bisexuality/asexuality do have their bearings in genetics. That, and given that there are 6.5 billion people on the planet, one might argue that, in a fraction of the population, homosexuality may very well be a fitting species survival instinct.

Did you read the last line in my post?

Where I acknowledged it was still based in morality, but noted that it wasn't as based in morality as things are now?

Actually it is. It is based upon morals declaring the primary subject to be the well-being of all people.

Actually it is. It is based upon morals declaring the primary subject to be the well-being of all people.
Nah, it's not.

It's based on a stance that allows everybody to do what they deem acceptable and moral, until it infringes upon others.

So it's not as based in one moral view, and isn't as based in morality, as it allows many people to live by their own moral outlook.

So yes, I would say it's crafted along one view, but it's not as rooted in a morality as the way things are currently done.

I simply don't agree with you on that.

I am both pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

Even if you aren't Christian, there may be a few reasons you would be against it both issues. Now I do NOT agree with these, but they are some ideas.

1. Gay marriage. Homosexuality is not nearly as common as heterosexuality. In nature, males have sex with females and reproduce. So, men + men and women + women could be viewed as unnatural, because it doesn't go along with the order of Male+Woman=More Humans. Things that are unnatural are usually viewed as immoral. Immoral/Unnatural = Bad. Homosexuality = Unnatural. Homosexuality = Bad. If homosexuality is bad, than gays are bad people, and bad people shouldn't have the same rights as other people.

2. Abortion. Some people believe that as soon as an egg turns into a fetus it has a soul and/or has a life, and that abortion is murder, because you're getting rid of it. Murder = Bad. However, I doubt homosexuality is as bad as murder. >.>;

In my opinion, however, being gay is not unnatural. It's something people have been FOREVER, and it does NOT hurt anyone, and does not even INVOLVE anyone who is not gay. Gay marriage, too, has NOTHING to do with other people, only the people that want to get married. That's like, "Well, they're (insert race), and because they are a minority, they must be bad, and they can't get married. So no (insert race) marriages! Being (insert race) is unnatural because there aren't as many of them as there are of us!"

Also, in the case of abortion, we have like NINE BILLION+ POPULATION. (If my numbers too large, just think: It'll be there VERY SOON.) Not ONLY do we NOT need more unwanted pregnancies, but it should ALSO be the right of the mother to choose if she wants her child or not. What if she was raped? What if it was an accident? What if she was drunk/incapacitated at the time? What if her birth control didn't work? What if she's fourteen? What if she doesn't have the ability to raise a child at this moment? You're going to force another life into being that will probably grow up miserable and not cared for enough? There is a cut off point (Like, four months?) after which abortion would jeapordize the life of the mother and child. Shouldn't the woman have time to choose before then? Whose to say when the baby has a soul/life of its own? I don't think a child has its own consciousness until it's almost fully formed, and could live independently of the womb.

To each their own, I guess.. but we all do have "the right to pursue happiness" don't we?

Uhm. >.> Yeah. That's what I have to say. o_O

if you would come out of your peniscentric haze you would realize that some gay couples are lesbians and where there are uteri there might well be unwanted embryos.


You mean like from a gang-bang?

:confused:

:p

Nah, it's not.

It's based on a stance that allows everybody to do what they deem acceptable and moral, until it infringes upon others.

So it's not as based in one moral view, and isn't as based in morality, as it allows many people to live by their own moral outlook.

So yes, I would say it's crafted along one view, but it's not as rooted in a morality as the way things are currently done.

I simply don't agree with you on that.

For the record: I, too, prefer your reason for laws above the 'my holy book says so'-reason.

But nonetheless it isa moral stance to grant every being all rights short of causing harm to others. It may be a more "allowing" (or however you may dub it) stance than a rigid moral codex set by some religious organization, but that does not change the nature of the thing itself.

edit: As for the "So it's not as based in one moral view": Individualism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism)

I think the US should take a look around at the world...several countries have already approved gay marriage or unions. We gotta get with the times.

Nah, it's not.

It's based on a stance that allows everybody to do what they deem acceptable and moral, until it infringes upon others.

So it's not as based in one moral view, and isn't as based in morality, as it allows many people to live by their own moral outlook.

So yes, I would say it's crafted along one view, but it's not as rooted in a morality as the way things are currently done.

I simply don't agree with you on that.

Except that live and let live is a very specific moral outlook. It may be a less detailed moral outlook, but it doesn't make the idea less rooted in morality. You declare that it is immoral to infringe on others and immoral to encroach on other's moral outlook, thus you make a moral claim. If you're making a normative claim the only thing you can root it in is morality, and laws have a normative nature.

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

Scientists recently found a gene in fruit flies that controls sexual orientation. By switching it on they could make male flies act in female fly courtship patterns, etc.

Obviously fruit flies are not the same as humans, but I thought it was an interesting study.

As for homosexuality being abnormal, it occurs in the natural world as well as in past civilizations. In ancient Greece, for example, young men were encouraged to take male lovers before marrying to do their duty of having children.

In response to the first poster: pro-life =/= anti-choice. Just because I personally would not have an abortion due to beliefs or morals does not mean I am against other people having abortions. (These are not necessarily my views, just provided as an example.)

I asked in another thread, and got no answer, so I won´t learn, but try again:

One of the seemingly strongest reason why homosexuality is bad is that it is unnatural. Closing my eyes for a moment, assuming this were true: How come these people spend so much energy wanting to abolish something supposedly unnatural, yet not so much as point at such decidedly unnatural things like car-tyres?
I´m really confused about this, please help me out.

O_o...what...car tyres...tires?

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

A higher percentage of the human population has engaged in same-sex intercourse than has engaged in the extremely abnormal practice of posting on NationStates forums.

Should that be banned as well?

Frankly, I don´t really care how which part of the English-speaking community spells which word (Question for brits: Or is it wourd?),
but yes, those black round rubber items.

You know, laws are not just based on what's moral. Morality is a religious viewpoint on what is right and what is wrong. I prefer ethics. Conducting in actions which results in the best outcome for the majority. Have you ever heard of Hummarabi? Hummarabi's code of law was the first set of laws ever formally written by the government. This was way before any sort of religion ever took any sort of stronghold. Even the polytheistic ones. So law can be constituted by more than what the bible says. These laws probably inspired many of the Bible's beliefs themselves.

Christianism, like most or all religions, is collectivist, just like those wonderful ideologies of fascism and communism. They do not recognize individuality, and are against freedom of choice and civil liberties in general. They do not accept that there are different ways of thinking and refuse to let people just mind their own business, because more freedom of action and thinking means that more people will disagree with them, and they may lose their power. That's why governments which are in theory secular are as moralistic as the religious ones. The punishment for the Arian women which aborted in the Nazi Germany was death penalty and gays are regularly jailed in countries like China and Cuba.

My guess is somthing in Leveticus and "gay people are icky" for gay marriage....I wouldn't know though....

Most "Christians" who openly use Leviticus as a justification for marginalizing homosexuals tend to wear nice polyblend clothing when they go out to eat at Red Lobster or Joe's Crab Shack too.

:p

Most "Christians" who openly use Leviticus as a justification for marginalizing homosexuals tend to wear nice polyblend clothing when they go out to eat at Red Lobster or Joe's Crab Shack too.

A lot of them are in favor of self-defense, too, and engage in divorce, which, unlike homosexuality, Jesus explicitly, in unambiguous terms, condemns.

It's not only Christianity....other religionz like Islam, Hinduism are also against Gay Marriages and Abortions.

There are various reasons for Gay Marriages to be looked down upon...
Firstly, Society just does not like changes and so Gays and Lesbians are looked down upon in many countries.
If gay marriages were made legal, there would be no differences between straight marriages and gay marriages and people would not look at it with an unfavourable eye.
There should be laws which allow gays to adopt kids....what matters most is that a kid is brought up in a loving household, whether his parents are gay or straight, it shouldn't matter. However, the kid could be bullied in his school on having gay parents for society from a very early age has imposed upon the children that only straight couples are "normal" while homosexuality is "weird".
Before making gay marriages legal, I feel the education system and the thinking pattern of the people should change and they should treat gay marriages like any other thing...

As far as abortion is concerned, Islam looks upon it with a very unfavourable eye. Maybe they are ok if abortion is allowed for a lady's health sake and that too if a physician suggests it. However this too is not accepted because they hold the belief that Children are The Gifts of God and they don't mind killing the mother just to have the child.
When the foetus has developed enough under normal health conditions, abortion is actually considered to be deliberate killing. Abortion just because the mother or father do not want the child is a strict no-no.
They do not agree to abortion in the cases of rape also because according to them the baby should be allowed to live.
If a couple wants an abortion because of some economic hardships, their religion teaches them that God is their Bringer and Provider and hence, they should not be worried about all this.

Abortions and gay marriages can only be permitted if we can revamp the thoughts of these people....

If I were to play the devil's advocate, homosexuality would be considered immoral because its associating with sex and obscenity. Often moralistic cultures find sex to lead to morally problematic situations and the spread of diesease. Sex and sexual aggressiveness have historically been linked with criminality which makes homosexuality threatening. Homosexuality is also seen as an ultimate selfish act like sex for pleasure because there is no chance of ever procreating. For a culture that sees sex and procreation as almost sacredly linked it is easy to see why homosexuality and the usurpation of normal gender responsibilities is so problematic.

being an atheist, i dont realy care what peaple of the same sex do to each other as long as they dont FORCE it on the public,
because you have to admit, if your walking down the street and you see 2 guys snoging the ass of each other :fluffle: it makes you feel VERY uneasy
if they keep it resonably quiet

but i have nothng against lebeins, it probably cause im a guy but hey, what we need is a womans oppinion on lesbeins
but being bisexual i thing is just quere, what makes them think you can be gay one minuet and normal the next! i think the term 'bisexual' should be changet to 'undecided,

Mantaray9992000']being an atheist, i dont realy care what peaple of the same sex do to each other as long as they dont FORCE it on the public,
because you have to admit, if your walking down the street and you see 2 guys snoging the ass of each other :fluffle: it makes you feel VERY uneasy
if they keep it resonably quiet

So if a man and woman are snoging each other, that's not forcing it on the public?

And people don't have to stare. I see a hot woman walking down the street (snoging a companion or not), I'll notice and look. I see an ugly woman, I'll register her presence and that's about it.

And WTH is snoging anyway?
but i have nothng against lebeins, it probably cause im a guy but hey, what we need is a womans oppinion on lesbeins
but being bisexual i thing is just quere, what makes them think you can be gay one minuet and normal the next! i think the term 'bisexual' should be changet to 'undecided,

I have a good bi friend. For her, it's not a matter of being gay one minute and 'normal' the next; it's a matter of being attracted to men and women in different ways and for different needs. As for undescided - she knows exactly what she wants from each sex... And she never considers herself normal, even when she's with her boyfriend.

Christianism, like most or all religions, is collectivist, just like those wonderful ideologies of fascism and communism. They do not recognize individuality, and are against freedom of choice and civil liberties in general. They do not accept that there are different ways of thinking and refuse to let people just mind their own business, because more freedom of action and thinking means that more people will disagree with them, and they may lose their power. That's why governments which are in theory secular are as moralistic as the religious ones. The punishment for the Arian women which aborted in the Nazi Germany was death penalty and gays are regularly jailed in countries like China and Cuba.

In point of undisputed fact, christianism is one of the main reasons for occidental affinity with individualism. Christianism is a pretty individual religion, the primary incentive to play it nice (turn the other cheek etc.) being the perspective of heavenly immortality, and not any earthly goodness or well-being. Such a punishment/reward-driven morality is a hotbed for individual concerns, or at least individual-centered outlooks on other people's concerns. Historically, it has generated more of a will to "self-interested altruism" (as oxymoronic as it may sounds), a striving to personal salvation through altruistic, seemingly collectivist behavior, rather than stand-alone collectivism.

And it is partly because of christianism (through scholastics) that modern philosophy was born.

Edit: And 'freedom of choice' is a central tenet to christianism, except maybe for the more extreme offshoots like jansenism.

I would just like to hear why people would oppose gay marriage: What is it to you that two people of the same sex get married? Why should you care? Why should they not get married because of your own beliefs? :confused: Same thing goes for early term abortion and abortion in cases of rape, endangerment of the mother, etc... Why should a woman not have full control over her body because of your beliefs? I'm interested to hear.

Woman should not be able to have an abortion for the same reason that people are not allowed to kill people. People say "She has a right to her body" and I say it is not her body she is casting judgement over. It is the body of the embryo. She does not have that right. Humans do not have that right. The right to decide when a life ends. (And yes, before you assume I am in favour of the death penelty and expansion of gun control, I am not)

Gay marriage is for me as a Christian, glorification of a sin. Basicly I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. What that doesnt mean is I'm a homophobe. Homophobes are people who fear/distrust/hate homosexuals. I don't do any of those things. Homosexual sex is a sin, so homosexuals are sinners. But hey guess what, so am I and so is everyone else on this forum. There's no point in fearing them or hating them because of a sin, since we would have to fear and hate ourselves too. However, having said that, I may not hate them for their sin, but I'd oppose glorifying it in a state regonised institution. Particually since said institution was originally religious and in my view created by God. Its basicly distorting what God made marriage to do.

Most "Christians" who openly use Leviticus as a justification for marginalizing homosexuals tend to wear nice polyblend clothing when they go out to eat at Red Lobster or Joe's Crab Shack too.

:p

*sigh*

Read this

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

It is not just Leviticus. Come back to me when you actually know something about this issue.

Woman should not be able to have an abortion for the same reason that people are not allowed to kill people. People say "She has a right to her body" and I say it is not her body she is casting judgement over. It is the body of the embryo. She does not have that right. Humans do not have that right. The right to decide when a life ends. (And yes, before you assume I am in favour of the death penelty and expansion of gun control, I am not)

It IS her body she's controling here. If it wasn't, somebody might come by your door tomorrow and force you to surgically remove one of your kidneys, as another person needs it to survive.
It is here body, and if she wants to have something removed from it, it's her right to do so. But it's her right alone, nobody elses.


Gay marriage is for me as a Christian, glorification of a sin. Basicly I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. What that doesnt mean is I'm a homophobe. Homophobes are people who fear/distrust/hate homosexuals. I don't do any of those things. Homosexual sex is a sin, so homosexuals are sinners. But hey guess what, so am I and so is everyone else on this forum. There's no point in fearing them or hating them because of a sin, since we would have to fear and hate ourselves too. However, having said that, I may not hate them for their sin, but I'd oppose glorifying it in a state regonised institution. Particually since said institution was originally religious and in my view created by God. Its basicly distorting what God made marriage to do.

If I remember correctly, it was regarded as a sin and deeply heretic for women to speak in church. Paul made a very clear statement about that, much clearer in fact than anything about homosexuality in the NT. Do you have a problem with women being priest, therefore?

As for marriage being created by god, marriage was around a long time indeed before religion, and especially before Christianity. It is a social construct, a legally binding contract, nothing more.

*sigh*

Read this

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

It is not just Leviticus. Come back to me when you actually know something about this issue.

Would you mind warning people if you link to a pdf file??? My browser just crashed because of it!

Would you mind warning people if you link to a pdf file??? My browser just crashed because of it!


Well, it does say 'pdf' at the end of the link.

Nethertheless, the article is garbage. I especially like the bits where it suggests homosexuality is on a par with beastiality, incest and child abuse.

Well, it does say 'pdf' at the end of the link.

Nethertheless, the article is garbage. I especially like the bits where it suggests homosexuality is on a par with beastiality, incest and child abuse.

Yes, ok, I admit, partly my fault.
I just hate it, because I normally avoid linking to pdf files, I know what it does to some browsers... and most people don't really read the extension before they click on the link.... :(

Oh, one of THOSE articles... always highly informative, with plenty of clear, unambiguous, perfectly translated bible quotes to support their claim... :rolleyes:

Would you mind warning people if you link to a pdf file??? My browser just crashed because of it!

Url clearly ended in PDF.

What more warning do you require?

Woman should not be able to have an abortion for the same reason that people are not allowed to kill people. People say "She has a right to her body" and I say it is not her body she is casting judgement over. It is the body of the embryo. She does not have that right. Humans do not have that right. The right to decide when a life ends. (And yes, before you assume I am in favour of the death penelty and expansion of gun control, I am not)

Until the United States decides to actually adopt eligible children and not just hold out for the Great White Baby, abortion is a more practical alternative than throwing more unwanted individuals into an adoption system that is becoming more and more of a shamble and farce.

And if going by your beliefs that aborting an embryo- which early on is nothing more than a blob of organic tissue- then by that logical extension, cancer therapy should be considered murder.

Gay marriage is for me as a Christian, glorification of a sin. Basicly I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. What that doesnt mean is I'm a homophobe. Homophobes are people who fear/distrust/hate homosexuals. I don't do any of those things. Homosexual sex is a sin, so homosexuals are sinners. But hey guess what, so am I and so is everyone else on this forum. There's no point in fearing them or hating them because of a sin, since we would have to fear and hate ourselves too. However, having said that, I may not hate them for their sin, but I'd oppose glorifying it in a state regonised institution. Particually since said institution was originally religious and in my view created by God. Its basicly distorting what God made marriage to do.

"Hate the Sin, not the Sinner" is the oldest mythologicak copout in Christian history. If the act itself is a sin, then those who commit it or have propensity for committing them should be hated as they will always be a potential instigator of sin. Otherwise the problem will never go away.

Unless you think the Manson Family Murder Spree is a horrific sin, but Charlie's a swell guy in person.

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

Define "normal". if we are simply talking about "statistical average" here, then having OCD isn't "normal". Does that mean someone with OCD can't get married?

If you mean, "unnatural" or "defective", you're going to have to support that.

I think the US should take a look around at the world...several countries have already approved gay marriage or unions. We gotta get with the times.

Mass. did it and the world didn't end. In fact, the government is really happy now - their tax base was pretty significantly increased!

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

if homosexuality is abnormal, why does it exist outside of humans? if it was that rediculously abnormal why are there scientific terms to describe same-sex relationships between animals? if its not genetic, then it implies choice, and if the animals are "chosing" to be homosexual then I think we need to re-evaluate the way we think about animals.

I think they'd say the same reason you make murder illegal. You make laws to keep people from doing things that are immoral/have potential to hurt them/others.
Laws don't keep anyone from doing anything, they merely outline the punishments for said actions.
Laws like "you shall be stoned for being raped".

Laws are based on society's morals. What you consider to be immoral may be fine with me, and visa versa. Hence the pushing and pulling...stepping forward and backward and so on. It's a friggin' absurd waltz. So much for progress. It seems the whole world wants to slide back into the Dark Ages.

Conservative economist and anarchocapitalist David Friedman recently tackled this very question on his blog:
One of the puzzling things about certain political and cultural conflicts is how strongly people feel about them. I can understand why some people would prefer that homosexuals not be permitted to marry. It is harder to understand why they regard the issue as enormously important. Similarly for same sex couples adopting. Similarly for polygamy. And similarly—I think the most interesting case of all—for attitudes towards transsexuals, individuals who have undergone a sex change operation. In each case, the obvious question is why A cares so much about what B, or B and C, or even B, C, D, and E are doing.

I have a conjecture about part of the answer.

The world is a complicated place. One way in which we deal with that complication, in law and thought, is by representing a complicated reality with a much simpler model. There are lots of examples:

Some people are more mature than others, in one or another dimension. For many purposes we lump all those differences, along with the continuous range of ages, into two categories—children and adults. Doing it that way makes it a lot easier, in law and in conversation, to deal with issues where maturity matters—at the cost, as with any simplification, of sometimes getting the wrong answer.

If we define gender by genitals, hermaphrodites are both male and female, eunuchs in some sense neither. If we define it by DNA, some apparent males are female, some females male. Some are neither XX nor XY, some both. Nonetheless, we continue to classify people, in the law and inside our heads, as either men or women. Most of the time the simplification fits the reality, occasionally it doesn't.

Someone who does not fit our categories is a problem, not because he is doing anything to us but because his existence makes it harder for us to use our simplified models to make sense of the world. The problem only exists if we are aware of it—XXY genetics existed a century ago, but nobody knew about them. Hermaphrodites existed, and were known to exist, but nobody you knew was a hermaphrodite, or if someone was you didn't know about it, so there was no problem for your day to day attempt to use a simplified map to navigate social space.

The biggest example of this problem, one now more or less over among the people I know, was the breakdown of marriage. It used to be that people could be usefully classified as married or not married, which simplified a good deal of social calculation. As it became increasingly common for couples to openly live together without being married, the classification began to break down. That made it harder to figure out whether you had to invite A to dinner if you invited B, whether you were free to court A, and how to briefly sum up your knowledge of the status of A and B when talking with C.

Transsexuals provide a particularly striking example of the problem. If you knew him as a male and now know her as a female, there is a real problem fitting him/her into your mental picture of the world—a problem that shows up in, among other places, my discomfort with using either gendered adjective. I can see how other people might find similar difficulties in fitting into their heads polygamous families, same sex married couples, children with two mommies, and much else.

I am not, of course, arguing that other people have any obligation to make their lives fit my picture. Maintaining my map of the world is my problem, not theirs—reality has no obligation to conform. But I think the discomfort which comes when reality changes in ways that make obsolete what used to be an adequate set of simplifications provide at least a partial explanation for the strength of the response.

source: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/02/rational-bigotry.html#links

A pretty good theory (and one borne out by at least some psychological research) on the source of bigotry of this nature.

This thread is stupid.

Why would a gay couple need an abortion?


:confused:


:p
You Sir are an idiot

These seem to be the emerging (reemerging, in the case of the latter) social concerns of this generation, but it is primarily the christians that are trying to limit other people's freedoms because of their own beliefs. I would just like to hear why people would oppose gay marriage: What is it to you that two people of the same sex get married? Why should you care? Why should they not get married because of your own beliefs? :confused: Same thing goes for early term abortion and abortion in cases of rape, endangerment of the mother, etc... Why should a woman not have full control over her body because of your beliefs? I'm interested to hear.

You realize there is already another thread about this, yes? Interestingly, these issues are actually more tied together than you mention.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470363

Christianism, like most or all religions, is collectivist, just like those wonderful ideologies of fascism and communism. They do not recognize individuality, and are against freedom of choice and civil liberties in general. They do not accept that there are different ways of thinking and refuse to let people just mind their own business, because more freedom of action and thinking means that more people will disagree with them, and they may lose their power.

I'll assume that by "Christianism" you mean, "Christianity".

So, um, Wow. How's being a bigot working out for you?

Mantaray9992000] being an atheist, i dont realy care what peaple of the same sex do to each other as long as they dont FORCE it on the public,
because you have to admit, if your walking down the street and you see 2 guys snoging the ass of each other it makes you feel VERY uneasy
if they keep it resonably quiet

Personally, if I'm walking down the street and see any couple at all "snogging the ass of each other," it's going to make me feel rather uneasy. Why single out a certain type of couple?

but i have nothng against lebeins, it probably cause im a guy but hey, what we need is a womans oppinion on lesbeins
but being bisexual i thing is just quere, what makes them think you can be gay one minuet and normal the next! i think the term 'bisexual' should be changet to 'undecided,

Being bisexual isn't a matter of being "gay one minute and normal the next," it is about being attracted to members of both sexes - generally simultaneously. I am most often attracted to men, but there are women I am attracted to as well. Therefore, I am bisexual, as I feel a sexual attraction to people of both sexes. It has nothing to do with being "undecided" because you never decide who you are attracted to - it is simply a biological process.


Gay marriage is for me as a Christian, glorification of a sin.

So are a lot of things. Did you know it is legal to drink to excess? To put harmful substances such as tobacco into your body - which you are supposed to keep as a temple? Sloth and Gluttony are perfectly legal.

Unless you are looking for a theocracy, you cannot legislate away everything you personally consider to be a sin.

However, having said that, I may not hate them for their sin, but I'd oppose glorifying it in a state regonised institution. Particually since said institution was originally religious and in my view created by God. Its basicly distorting what God made marriage to do.

God didn't make civil marriage. God made religious marriage. And if you want your church to deny homosexuals marriage, then stay in a church that does so. It doesn't change the purpose of a state-granted marriage, which is to protect the people in the situation of living as a single entity - which homosexual couples do just as surely as heterosexual couples.

Once again, unless you want to live in a theocracy (in which case you should leave the country), you cannot say, "We can discriminate against these people because I don't like their sins."

*sigh*

Read this

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

It is not just Leviticus. Come back to me when you actually know something about this issue.

Any idea why Paul made those words up, friend? There were already popular words for the ideas you claim he was trying to express so why would he make up new ones? There is a clever little theory that Paul an educated man made up words because he was talking about a more complicated concept. Of course, you know all this, because you know so much about this issue. Perhaps, next time you choose to insult someone you should be more educated yourse, my friend.

Mantaray9992000]being an atheist, i dont realy care what peaple of the same sex do to each other as long as they dont FORCE it on the public,
because you have to admit, if your walking down the street and you see 2 guys snoging the ass of each other it makes you feel VERY uneasy
if they keep it resonably quiet

Actually, it doesn't make me feel "very uneasy" at all. No more than two people of different sexes "snoging the ass of each other" makes me feel "very uneasy."

The public is not obligated to watch gay men or women kissing. There is no coercion involved.

but being bisexual i thing is just quere, what makes them think you can be gay one minuet and normal the next! i think the term 'bisexual' should be changet to 'undecided,

Sexual orientation isn't a choice. There is no decision to be "undecided" about. Bisexuals are not "undecided," they simply have the capability to be romantically and sexually attracted to people of either sex. The fact that they do not fit into your presupposed categories does not mean that they do not exist.

Ok. Lets look at it this way. Is it healthy for society as a whole to allow something that has no demonstrable positive effect on the world to occur?

I have repeatedly seen "society as a majority" mentioned in this thread, and so, taking that thinking a bit farther, I reached the question I just posed. Now for another question. Who decides what "demonstrably positive to society" means? The majority? Bureauracrats? The Government? Those affected by the decision?

You mean like from a gang-bang?

:confused:

:p
what do you mean by THAT?

i meant from sex that might involve tranferring semen to the body of an otherwise homosexual woman.

Ok. Lets look at it this way. Is it healthy for society as a whole to allow something that has no demonstrable positive effect on the world to occur?

Depends on what you mean by "healthy" and "positive effect." I don't think morally neutral actions should be persecuted, and I think allowing people to do what they want as much as reasonably possible is a "positive effect" in itself.

I have repeatedly seen "society as a majority" mentioned in this thread, and so, taking that thinking a bit farther, I reached the question I just posed. Now for another question. Who decides what "demonstrably positive to society" means? The majority? Bureauracrats? The Government? Those affected by the decision?

Those affected by the decision.

Outlawing homosexuality because your religion says it's a sin is stupid. Your religion also says that lying, having ambitions, and numerous other things are sins. It also says all sins are equal. Now, why does homosexuality become such a big deal?

I'm a Christian, but I believe some of the Old Testament was written by men who wanted to keep their power, not men of God, and, really, the New Testament was written 200 years after Christ's death. Assuming people get an accurate idea is not smart. Not all quotes in the New Testament are neccerally true. I mean, not many people would write down every single thing a man said, even if he was God.

God's word is final, but human's word is not. Even the most convservative Christian's will admit God did not write the Bible. So go figure.

Depends on what you mean by "healthy" and "positive effect." I don't think morally neutral actions should be persecuted, and I think allowing people to do what they want as much as reasonably possible is a "positive effect" in itself.



Those affected by the decision.

Healthy being defined as beneficial to society as a whole, and positive effect defined similarly. Something that actively contributes the the morals and welfare of the society in question.

But the majority rule, do they not? The question is the health of society as a whole, isn't it? So, what right does any minority have to make sweeping decisions regarding a society in its entirety?

Now. I've asked a few questions, and I'll give my view. I'm a christian. I'm against homosexual marraige, not because the bible says its wrong, but because I cannot see any way that homosexual marraige contributes to society as a group. Racial minorities deserve equality because they were(in some places are) actively persecuted simply for being what they are. In most 1st World Nations, homosexuals are left to their own devices, until they start trying to protest the fact that they're recieveing the same treatment as every other man or woman in the world. Then a few ignorant bigots kill a few of them, oir attack a few, or thraten a few, and they get exactly what they want, because a few morons are giving them exactly what they need to get the desired result. They NEED to be persecuted in order to get anything. If we were to just leave homosexuals alone, they wouldn't be able to protest anything, since there wouldn't be anything to protest. And if they did protest, they'd get ignored, because no one would be giving them any ammunition.

I treally hope that makes sense, because I'm not the most articulate person out there. It all makes sense to me, and my very twisted thought processes, and convoluted logic.

Healthy being defined as beneficial to society as a whole, and positive effect defined similarly. Something that actively contributes the the morals and welfare of the society in question.

But the majority rule, do they not? The question is the health of society as a whole, isn't it? So, what right does any minority have to make sweeping decisions regarding a society in its entirety?

Now. I've asked a few questions, and I'll give my view. I'm a christian. I'm against homosexual marraige, not because the bible says its wrong, but because I cannot see any way that homosexual marraige contributes to society as a group. Racial minorities deserve equality because they were(in some places are) actively persecuted simply for being what they are. In most 1st World Nations, homosexuals are left to their own devices, until they start trying to protest the fact that they're recieveing the same treatment as every other man or woman in the world. Then a few ignorant bigots kill a few of them, oir attack a few, or thraten a few, and they get exactly what they want, because a few morons are giving them exactly what they need to get the desired result. They NEED to be persecuted in order to get anything. If we were to just leave homosexuals alone, they wouldn't be able to protest anything, since there wouldn't be anything to protest. And if they did protest, they'd get ignored, because no one would be giving them any ammunition.

I treally hope that makes sense, because I'm not the most articulate person out there. It all makes sense to me, and my very twisted thought processes, and convoluted logic.
Hold on...are you saying that persucetion of homosexuals is a good thing?

These seem to be the emerging (reemerging, in the case of the latter) social concerns of this generation, but it is primarily the christians that are trying to limit other people's freedoms because of their own beliefs. I would just like to hear why people would oppose gay marriage: What is it to you that two people of the same sex get married? Why should you care? Why should they not get married because of your own beliefs? :confused: Same thing goes for early term abortion and abortion in cases of rape, endangerment of the mother, etc... Why should a woman not have full control over her body because of your beliefs? I'm interested to hear.
I'm in favour of both gay marriage and abortion, but I think that their importance, as issues, is greatly exaggerated.

Why do you generalise about Christians? Not all of them are conservative. In fact, most are probably not.

Conservative people think abortion is murder. If I thought abortion was murder I would want it to be illegal as well. Gay marriage I'm not so sure about. I don't see how gay people being married could harm anyone else. This is where I can't see it from the conservative p.o.v. at all.

Hold on...are you saying that persucetion of homosexuals is a good thing?


I'm saying it's bad, in a moral sense, but good in the sense that if they weren't persecuted, they wouldn't be able to protest anything. They need to be persecuted to get anything changed, similar to the Civil Rights Movement, back in the day.

Ok. Lets look at it this way. Is it healthy for society as a whole to allow something that has no demonstrable positive effect on the world to occur?

Definately.

What would happen if something that isn't detrimental is banned? Many people would become upset, trust and respect in the goc't (or however enforces it) becomes less, resources are wasted enforcing the ban. Thus a non-issue becomes a larger issue.

Even permitting slightly detrimental behavior is better than banning it, as it will provide a safety valve. Ban too much, and bad stff brews...

Healthy being defined as beneficial to society as a whole, and positive effect defined similarly. Something that actively contributes the the morals and welfare of the society in question.

What do you mean by "beneficial"? That is the real question.

I think sexual freedom is very beneficial, because I oppose imposing roles on human beings. I also think reproductive freedom is very beneficial, because overpopulation is a looming threat and women having the capability to control their lives is important. Obviously, others disagree.

But the majority rule, do they not? The question is the health of society as a whole, isn't it? So, what right does any minority have to make sweeping decisions regarding a society in its entirety?

I believe in self-government before I believe in majority rule. The majority has no right to crush the individual, as long as the individual is only governing himself and is not interfering with anyone else. Decisions that affect all of society should be decided by majority rule; decisions - like consensual and egalitarian sexual relations between adults - that don't should be decided by the participants, those affected to a reasonable degree.

Now. I've asked a few questions, and I'll give my view. I'm a christian. I'm against homosexual marraige, not because the bible says its wrong, but because I cannot see any way that homosexual marraige contributes to society as a group.

Isn't freedom beneficial? Or is what you really mean that giving gays and lesbians marriage rights doesn't help straight people? Fine. By the same logic, let's exclusively declare that you are unworthy of having any rights, and imprison you for life on principle. It doesn't hurt anyone else, does it?

Racial minorities deserve equality because they were(in some places are) actively persecuted simply for being what they are. In most 1st World Nations, homosexuals are left to their own devices, until they start trying to protest the fact that they're recieveing the same treatment as every other man or woman in the world.

Read some history.

The gay liberation movement started like every other liberation movement of oppressed groups - because gays and lesbians WERE oppressed, and WERE NOT treated like everyone else.

They still can't marry the people they love, still have to deal with intense discrimination and prejudice, and are still regularly demonized by "respectable" people.

Then a few ignorant bigots kill a few of them, oir attack a few, or thraten a few, and they get exactly what they want, because a few morons are giving them exactly what they need to get the desired result. They NEED to be persecuted in order to get anything. If we were to just leave homosexuals alone, they wouldn't be able to protest anything, since there wouldn't be anything to protest. And if they did protest, they'd get ignored, because no one would be giving them any ammunition.

If you are proposing stopping the oppression of gays and lesbians in order to stop gay and lesbian protest of their oppression, I think they would be the first to agree to that arrangement.

Definately.

What would happen if something that isn't detrimental is banned? Many people would become upset, trust and respect in the goc't (or however enforces it) becomes less, resources are wasted enforcing the ban. Thus a non-issue becomes a larger issue.

Even permitting slightly detrimental behavior is better than banning it, as it will provide a safety valve. Ban too much, and bad stff brews...

And now we reach my point. Gay Marraige is a non-issue. It doesn't really matter. In all honesty, if it weren't for the fact that she wants to get married eventually, I wouldn't get married, since I don't really see the point. Love is all that matters, not a slip of paper.

...In most 1st World Nations, homosexuals are left to their own devices, until they start trying to protest the fact that they're recieveing the same treatment as every other man or woman in the world. ...

Same treatment?


If I have a female domestic partner, and have to go to the hopsital, she has visiting rights.

Same situation, male partner - he doesn't have visiting rights.

Ditto inheritance/wills.

Legally, same sex couples are treated differently.

Perhaps you're in a different country; that's how it is here in the US...

And now we reach my point. Gay Marraige is a non-issue. It doesn't really matter. In all honesty, if it weren't for the fact that she wants to get married eventually, I wouldn't get married, since I don't really see the point. Love is all that matters, not a slip of paper.

It's a non-issue to you because you are given the choice. To people who are not given the choice, it's a bit upsetting to be denied the more than 1000 rights and priveleges afforded a married couple. To someone who dies and their spouse does not get to continue collecting their social security or other benefits that would be afforded an other spouse, it's an issue. To someone who has been living with and loving someone for several decades it's an issue when the estranged parents come in and start making medical or estate considerations for an unconscious or dying patient. To someone who has been living with and loving someone for decades it's an issue when they are not let into see their spouse because they are not considered immediate family or they are not allowed to discuss certain issue or they are not given spousal privelege or any of a number of other things. Marriage is far more than a slip of paper and denying it to a portion of our population because people think they're icky is definitely NOT a non-issue.

Healthy being defined as beneficial to society as a whole, and positive effect defined similarly. Something that actively contributes the the morals and welfare of the society in question.

If you outlawed everything that didn't actively contribute to the society, you'd have an awful lot of laws.

Are you trying to outlaw smoking? Drinking? Lying? Jumping?

But the majority rule, do they not? The question is the health of society as a whole, isn't it? So, what right does any minority have to make sweeping decisions regarding a society in its entirety?

Gay marriage isn't a "sweeping decision regarding a society in its entirety." It doesn't affect you in the least, unless you are a homosexual person yourself who would like to get married. It is an expression of the ideals of our country - equal application of the law to all. So long as certain protections exist for a couple who choose to live as a single legal entity, said protections must be extended to all such couples, unless the government can produce a compelling interest to apply it unequally. They have done no such thing.

Now. I've asked a few questions, and I'll give my view. I'm a christian. I'm against homosexual marraige, not because the bible says its wrong, but because I cannot see any way that homosexual marraige contributes to society as a group.

It contributes in exactly the same way as heterosexual marriage - by protecting those citizens who choose to live together as a single entity - who choose to devote their lives to one another.

By your logic, we should ban *all* marriage, because no marriage contributes to society as a group. What will my upcoming marriage contribute to society as a whole? Nothing, really. My fiance and I will contribute the same things as a married couple as we do as single people who happen to be dating. What we will gain is protections tailored to our specific circumstance.

Racial minorities deserve equality because they were(in some places are) actively persecuted simply for being what they are.

So, what right does any minority have to make sweeping decisions regarding a society in its entirety?

In most 1st World Nations, homosexuals are left to their own devices, until they start trying to protest the fact that they're recieveing the same treatment as every other man or woman in the world.

Actually, they aren't receiving the same treatment. They are being told that they, should they choose to devote their lives to another person and live as a single entity, are not entitled to the same protections afforded to a man and woman who choose to do the exact same thing. Does that really sound like the "same treatment"?

Let's look at another place where this argument has been used: Once upon a time, bigots like you tried to justify banning interracial marriage, since every man and every woman had the right to marry a member of the same race.

Then a few ignorant bigots kill a few of them, oir attack a few, or thraten a few, and they get exactly what they want, because a few morons are giving them exactly what they need to get the desired result. They NEED to be persecuted in order to get anything. If we were to just leave homosexuals alone, they wouldn't be able to protest anything, since there wouldn't be anything to protest. And if they did protest, they'd get ignored, because no one would be giving them any ammunition.

The issue of same-sex marriage has nothing at all to do with homosexuals who have been beaten or killed. It is a matter of applying all laws equally, as per the 14th Amendment. Currently heterosexual couples can gain protections under the law which then deems them a single legal entity. Homosexual couples cannot.

I treally hope that makes sense, because I'm not the most articulate person out there. It all makes sense to me, and my very twisted thought processes, and convoluted logic.

Exactly - twisted thought processes and convoluted logic, not to mention a healthy dose of bigotry.

And now we reach my point. Gay Marraige is a non-issue. .

In that case, why spend the time and effort to ban it? Why treat gays differently and give them something to be pissed about?

Ok. Lets look at it this way. Is it healthy for society as a whole to allow something that has no demonstrable positive effect on the world to occur?

As long as it's not destructive I don't see why it should not be allowed.

Let's look at another place where this argument has been used: Once upon a time, bigots like you tried to justify banning interracial marriage, since every man and every woman had the right to marry a member of the same race.
And like the racists, in a few decades the homophobes will probably be so embarrassed that they'll just be pretending that they agreed with us all along.

And like the racists, in a few decades the homophobes will probably be so embarrassed that they'll just be pretending that they agreed with us all along.

Racists are still rather unapologetic... I think that those against homosexual marraige based on bigotry will be just as bigotted if homosexual marraige ever takes hold.

Racists are still rather unapologetic... I think that those against homosexual marraige based on bigotry will be just as bigotted if homosexual marraige ever takes hold.

Bigotry is the only way to be against homosexual marriage, unless one is against *all* marriage.

Bigotry is the only way to be against homosexual marriage, unless one is against *all* marriage.

Bigotry is the only way to be against it if the people you're arguing with are as limited in their world view as the Fundamentalists. YES! That means YOU are just as bad as Falwell and his Moral Majority!

And, if you read my earlier posts, you'll note I'm not against it per se. I'm just actively ambivalent, and think all the argument is overblown and a waste of time. Either DO it, or shut up.

Bigotry is the only way to be against it if the people you're arguing with are as limited in their world view as the Fundamentalists.

If you would like to provide an argument against homosexual marriage (not all marriage, but specifically homosexual marriage) that doesn't involve bigotry, I'd like to see it.

YES! That means YOU are just as bad as Falwell and his Moral Majority!

Hardly. I am actually in favor of treating all human beings equally - somethign you obviously care nothing about.

And, if you read my earlier posts, you'll note I'm not against it per se. I'm just actively ambivalent, and think all the argument is overblown and a waste of time. Either DO it, or shut up.

No, but you did make a statement that homosexual marriage contributes nothing to society and therefore possibly shouldn't be allowed, while ingoring the fact that heterosexual marriage provides nothing more to society than homosexual marriage. In other words, you tried to make a clear distinction between the contribution of homosexual persons to society and that of heterosexual persons - ie. bigotry.

Edit: Your statement was logically equivalent to someone saying, "Why should we let blacks marry whites? Interracial marriages don't contribute anything to society. Why should we let the minority who want to marry people with different colored skin decide for all of us?"

Meanwhile, it would seem that someone is lying here:

And, if you read my earlier posts, you'll note I'm not against it per se. I'm just actively ambivalent,

Really?

Then what does this say?

'm against homosexual marraige, not because the bible says its wrong, but because I cannot see any way that homosexual marraige contributes to society as a group.

Wait. How can you be ambivalent and actively opposed at the same time? Oh wait, you can't.

Homosexuality should not even exist. It's a biological mutation that should not be permitted to continue. This doesn't mean we should roundup all homosexuals and execute them though. Just ban gay marriage, relationships, adoptions(it may force the mutation to occur)...

If you would like to provide an argument against homosexual marriage (not all marriage, but specifically homosexual marriage) that doesn't involve bigotry, I'd like to see it.



Hardly. I am actually in favor of treating all human beings equally - somethign you obviously care nothing about.



No, but you did make a statement that homosexual marriage contributes nothing to society and therefore possibly shouldn't be allowed, while ingoring the fact that heterosexual marriage provides nothing more to society than homosexual marriage. In other words, you tried to make a clear distinction between the contribution of homosexual persons to society and that of heterosexual persons - ie. bigotry.

Edit: Your statement was logically equivalent to someone saying, "Why should we let blacks marry whites? Interracial marriages don't contribute anything to society. Why should we let the minority who want to marry people with different colored skin decide for all of us?"

If I'm ambivalent towards heterosexual marraige, except the fact that my GF eventually wants to be married, then why would I have an issue with outlawing ALL marraige? And, in my opinion, interracial marraige contributes quite a bit to society. For example, cultural intermingling, genetic intermixing, and many other very benificial things occur with interracial marraige.

Meanwhile, it would seem that someone is lying here:



Really?

Then what does this say?



Wait. How can you be ambivalent and actively opposed at the same time? Oh wait, you can't.

I did say ACTIVE ambivalence. I'm opposed to all the issues people are making out of it, since I'm ambivalent to marraige in general. Make more sense now?

If I'm ambivalent towards heterosexual marraige, except the fact that my GF eventually wants to be married, then why would I have an issue with outlawing ALL marraige?

Then you should argue in favor of that, instead of simply wanting to leave out homosexual marriage. It is bigotry if you single out a certain group, you know.

And, in my opinion, interracial marraige contributes quite a bit to society. For example, cultural intermingling, genetic intermixing, and many other very benificial things occur with interracial marraige.

Cultural intermingling and genetic intermingling could happen without marriage. Last time I checked, you don't need to get married to have children or learn about a new culture.

Interracial marriage doesn't provide a single thing to society that a marriage between two people of the same ethnicity doesn't provide. Their contribution to society is completely equivalent.

Homosexuality should not even exist. It's a biological mutation that should not be permitted to continue.

Why not?

This doesn't mean we should roundup all homosexuals and execute them though. Just ban gay marriage, relationships, adoptions(it may force the mutation to occur)...

If it truly is a "biological mutation," none of that will make the slightest difference.

I did say ACTIVE ambivalence. I'm opposed to all the issues people are making out of it, since I'm ambivalent to marraige in general. Make more sense now?

Not in the least. If marriage exists at all, it must be applied equally. Of course, oh wait, you said it already was, even though that is a blatant lie just like, "Everyone can marry someone of the same race, therefore marriage is completely equal," was..... Hmmmm, once again - bigotry.

If you were truly ambivalent, you wouldn't be opposed to homosexual marriage, which you said you were. You would say, "I don't care either way."

Homosexuality should not even exist. It's a biological mutation that should not be permitted to continue.

Really? Do point out the specific mutation then.

Meanwhile, are you going to around keeping all homosexual animals apart as well?

This doesn't mean we should roundup all homosexuals and execute them though. Just ban gay marriage, relationships, adoptions(it may force the mutation to occur)...

Wow, you are completely and totally ignorant of basic biology, aren't you? Simply being around another person cannot cause a mutation to occur. Please try again when you actually have a clue.

Homosexuality should not even exist. It's a biological mutation that should not be permitted to continue. This doesn't mean we should roundup all homosexuals and execute them though. Just ban gay marriage, relationships, adoptions(it may force the mutation to occur)...


See, THIS is the kind of person I was talking about earlier. The kind that wants to persecute homosexuals. I just want them to do like I want everyonew else to do: Shut up, and lead their lives like the rest of humanity, in relative anonymity, not broadcasting their personal preferences to the entire planet.

See, THIS is the kind of person I was talking about earlier. The kind that wants to persecute homosexuals. I just want them to do like I want everyonew else to do: Shut up, and lead their lives like the rest of humanity, in relative anonymity, not broadcasting their personal preferences to the entire planet.

They can't "live their lives like the rest of humanity," right now. The rest of humanity can marry the person they choose to devote their lives to and live as a single entity with. So, what you are really saying is, "They should just let the government keep them from getting the same legal consideration as everyone else, because I personally don't want to hear anyone complaining about that."

This is logically like saying, "Those blacks should have just shut up and lived their lives like the rest of humanity..." when blacks were relegated to poorly funded schools and disenfranchisement.

Homosexuals generally want to live their lives like the rest of humanity, in relative anonymity. However, they can't as long as they are treated differently than the rest of humanity, on no more basis than their sexual orientation.

honestly I dont care about what people do in their own lives and as long as I'm not effected I say let the gays get married and let little slutty highschool girls who get pregnant get abortions.

They can't "live their lives like the rest of humanity," right now. The rest of humanity can marry the person they choose to devote their lives to and live as a single entity with. So, what you are really saying is, "They should just let the government keep them from getting the same legal consideration as everyone else, because I personally don't want to hear anyone complaining about that."

This is logically like saying, "Those blacks should have just shut up and lived their lives like the rest of humanity..." when blacks were relegated to poorly funded schools and disenfranchisement.

Homosexuals generally want to live their lives like the rest of humanity, in relative anonymity. However, they can't as long as they are treated differently than the rest of humanity, on no more basis than their sexual orientation.

If they wanna be anonymous, then they should shut up about it. This is a pretty simple set up. Either they protest something that really isn't earth shatteringly important, or they shut up, and go about their lives like the rest of us.

You know, you really ARE like Jerry. Anyone that disagrees with you is automatically an ignorant bigot. Although with THAT particular ignorant bigot, everyone that disagrees is automatically damned to Hell for all eternity.

Mantaray9992000']being an atheist, i dont realy care what peaple of the same sex do to each other as long as they dont FORCE it on the public,
because you have to admit, if your walking down the street and you see 2 guys snoging the ass of each other :fluffle: it makes you feel VERY uneasy
if they keep it resonably quiet

but i have nothng against lebeins, it probably cause im a guy but hey, what we need is a womans oppinion on lesbeins
but being bisexual i thing is just quere, what makes them think you can be gay one minuet and normal the next! i think the term 'bisexual' should be changet to 'undecided,


There is SO much wrong with that post... I am bisexual. I am not undecided. I am attracted sexually to both men and women. I never made a decision to be, it is simply who I am.

As to straight men and their fascination with lesbians, I would just like to remind you all that lesbianism is NOT a spectator sport, all of the pornography to the contrary notwithstanding. Those women are ACTING, boys. Trust me on this one, normal everyday lesbians are NOT just hoping some guy is going to say "Can I watch?" any more than YOU are hoping that some guy will ask to watch you have sex with your girlfriend. In fact, many lesbians with whom I am personally acquainted have pointed out just how icky that concept is for them.

Also, being a bisexual woman does NOT mean I am longing to do a threesome with you and your girlfriend.

If they wanna be anonymous, then they should shut up about it. This is a pretty simple set up. Either they protest something that really isn't earth shatteringly important, or they shut up, and go about their lives like the rest of us.

It is earth shatteringly important, to some. To the mother who wants her partner to be able to adopt her child and thus be able to be an active and legal parent - something that is pretty necessary since the other parent currently cannot make any decisions for that child, it is pretty damn important. To the man who wants to be able to visit his partner in the hospital, even when only family are allowed, it is pretty damn important. To the woman who wants to leave her possessions to her partner, with no chance of a family which has disowned her challenging her wishes, it is important. And so on...

And it doesn't change the fact that you said they should "live their lives like the rest of humanity," something that is impossible when they are treated differently than the rest of humanity.

You may be ambivalent to personally getting married, but the protections it affords are many - and are very important to many.

You know, you really ARE like Jerry. Anyone that disagrees with you is automatically an ignorant bigot.

No, anyone who actively discriminates against others is a bigot. Many people disagree with me - and they aren't bigots. You, on the other hand, have no problem with active discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, you are a bigot. See the difference?

amen.
Minorities are to be given the same rights as the rest of the population - it's one of the core concepts of the US.
And on the aspect of homosexuality - stop trying to treat it like a desies. Yes, some gay people's genes are slighly different, but then, so are some races genes different. Persecuting againt homosexuality is just like racism, a concept condemed in todays society. Then why is it a big issue that these people shouldn't be able to live there lives the way they want?
Banning Gay marriges will not stop gays from being gays any more than denieing women the right to vote will make them men. It will only cause undue suffering on those persecuted.
I'm pro-choice all the way. Let everyon make there own decisions.
It has been proven that the brains of fetuses before 3 months are still far below animal brain activity.

Homosexuality should not even exist. It's a biological mutation that should not be permitted to continue. This doesn't mean we should roundup all homosexuals and execute them though. Just ban gay marriage, relationships, adoptions(it may force the mutation to occur)...

Every single thing about the human races is a biological mutation, as was pointed out on another thread recently. Your hair color. Your height. The fact that you have eyes. These things exist, there is no should or shouldn't about them... and banning gay marriage, relationships and adoptions will do absolutely nothing to make the mutation disappear. Bans on these things are societal, not biological. And as a society, we are trying to move past the place where our bigottry makes us want to restrict the rights of others just because they are different from us.

Obviously you have no idea how a mutation occurs, and I am sure others will have taken you to task over it, so let me just say that you need to get back to high school and retake biology.

It is earth shatteringly important, to some. To the mother who wants her partner to be able to adopt her child and thus be able to be an active and legal parent - something that is pretty necessary since the other parent currently cannot make any decisions for that child, it is pretty damn important. To the man who wants to be able to visit his partner in the hospital, even when only family are allowed, it is pretty damn important. To the woman who wants to leave her possessions to her partner, with no chance of a family which has disowned her challenging her wishes, it is important. And so on...

And it doesn't change the fact that you said they should "live their lives like the rest of humanity," something that is impossible when they are treated differently than the rest of humanity.

You may be ambivalent to personally getting married, but the protections it affords are many - and are very important to many.



No, anyone who actively discriminates against others is a bigot. Many people disagree with me - and they aren't bigots. You, on the other hand, have no problem with active discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, you are a bigot. See the difference?

Ah, but therin you betray yourself. I have said before that I'm opposed to the pointless argument. I'm not opposed to gay marraige. The fact that I don't care about marraige in general may make my argument SEEM bigotted, but looking at it from MY point of view, they're not really missing anything.

EDIT: Disturbing Realization: If you have a pair of less than intelligent(common sense wise) homosexuals, they're much less dangerous to the human gene pool than a pair of less than intelligent heterosexuals. Stupid straight people reproduce early, reproduce quickly, and reproduce OFTEN. That means that instead of NO screwed up kids, we have 7-8 screwed up kids...

Gay marriage is for me as a Christian, glorification of a sin. Basicly I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. What that doesnt mean is I'm a homophobe. Homophobes are people who fear/distrust/hate homosexuals. I don't do any of those things. Homosexual sex is a sin, so homosexuals are sinners. But hey guess what, so am I and so is everyone else on this forum. There's no point in fearing them or hating them because of a sin, since we would have to fear and hate ourselves too. However, having said that, I may not hate them for their sin, but I'd oppose glorifying it in a state regonised institution. Particually since said institution was originally religious and in my view created by God. Its basicly distorting what God made marriage to do.

No, technically you are not a homophobe. What you are is a bigot.

amen.
Minorities are to be given the same rights as the rest of the population - it's one of the core concepts of the US.
And on the aspect of homosexuality - stop trying to treat it like a desies. Yes, some gay people's genes are slighly different, but then, so are some races genes different. Persecuting againt homosexuality is just like racism, a concept condemed in todays society. Then why is it a big issue that these people shouldn't be able to live there lives the way they want?
Banning Gay marriges will not stop gays from being gays any more than denieing women the right to vote will make them men. It will only cause undue suffering on those persecuted.
I'm pro-choice all the way. Let everyon make there own decisions.
It has been proven that the brains of fetuses before 3 months are still far below animal brain activity.

Amen to that. :cool:

There is SO much wrong with that post... I am bisexual. I am not undecided. I am attracted sexually to both men and women. I never made a decision to be, it is simply who I am.

As to straight men and their fascination with lesbians, I would just like to remind you all that lesbianism is NOT a spectator sport, all of the pornography to the contrary notwithstanding. Those women are ACTING, boys. Trust me on this one, normal everyday lesbians are NOT just hoping some guy is going to say "Can I watch?" any more than YOU are hoping that some guy will ask to watch you have sex with your girlfriend. In fact, many lesbians with whom I am personally acquainted have pointed out just how icky that concept is for them.

Also, being a bisexual woman does NOT mean I am longing to do a threesome with you and your girlfriend.

Show of hands as to who doesn't care if they're acting?

Show of hands as to who doesn't care if they're acting?

You know, it's really pathetic when people have to watch that crap... Again, much as I said about marraige, what's the point?

You know, it's really pathetic when people have to watch that crap... Again, much as I said about marraige, what's the point?

Geez, I was kidding....

Geez, I was kidding....

Ok, so you're just uncouth, instead of being pathetic.

Homosexuality should not even exist. It's a biological mutation that should not be permitted to continue. This doesn't mean we should roundup all homosexuals and execute them though. Just ban gay marriage, relationships, adoptions(it may force the mutation to occur)...

Blue eyes are a mutation as well. As I recall, it's a recessive gene. Stop everyone with blue eyes from having kids, and we'll see far fewer. Be even faster if we search people's geneologies - no one with blue eyes in their families can reproduce!

BTW - are you aware that homosexuality occurs in dogs and cats as well? A female dog will mount another, for example...

These seem to be the emerging (reemerging, in the case of the latter) social concerns of this generation, but it is primarily the christians that are trying to limit other people's freedoms because of their own beliefs. I would just like to hear why people would oppose gay marriage: What is it to you that two people of the same sex get married? Why should you care? Why should they not get married because of your own beliefs? :confused:
Because its wrong, it hurts me. I know being gay is gross, so they shouldnt marry, or ride the same bus as me, I might catch it. It hurts America, more than anything, like poverty, or inequality, or failing social services, or terrorism. Those arent important, prevent gays from doing gay things is. It hurts the sacnity of it all, I mean Ive been married and divorced twice now, and it was gift from god, I dont want gays taking that from me.


Same thing goes for early term abortion and abortion in cases of rape, endangerment of the mother, etc... Why should a woman not have full control over her body because of your beliefs? I'm interested to hear.
Agian, because Im right. Its her fault for getting raped, so its my job to tell her she cant abort it. She must live everyday for rest of her life as a reminder of what she did to get raped, its only fair. Or she could give up for adoption(but not to a gay, the kid might catch it) or put it kid in our fabulous foster where the child will no doubt have great life free from hardship.

*snip*

I gotta assume you were trying to be funny with all of that.

By the way, did you know you spelled your name incorrectly?

Ok, so you're just uncouth, instead of being pathetic.

Eh, sure, why not. I can live with uncouth, coming from you.

Ah, but therin you betray yourself. I have said before that I'm opposed to the pointless argument. I'm not opposed to gay marraige. The fact that I don't care about marraige in general may make my argument SEEM bigotted, but looking at it from MY point of view, they're not really missing anything.

EDIT: Disturbing Realization: If you have a pair of less than intelligent(common sense wise) homosexuals, they're much less dangerous to the human gene pool than a pair of less than intelligent heterosexuals. Stupid straight people reproduce early, reproduce quickly, and reproduce OFTEN. That means that instead of NO screwed up kids, we have 7-8 screwed up kids...

The point is whether or not you enjoy that right doesn't mean they shouldn't. You get to make a choice. So should they. They aren't piping up about their sexuality, they are piping up about how people of their sexuality are denied rights. When we stop denying them rights, they'll have nothing to say. Want them to shut up? Vote against every initiative that comes up to deny them rights and encourage everyone you meet to do the same. Problem solved.

Because its wrong, it hurts me. I know being gay is gross, so they shouldnt marry, or ride the same bus as me, I might catch it. It hurts America, more than anything, like poverty, or inequality, or failing social services, or terrorism. Those arent important, prevent gays from doing gay things is. It hurts the sacnity of it all, I mean Ive been married and divorced twice now, and it was gift from god, I dont want gays taking that from me.

Agian, because Im right. Its her fault for getting raped, so its my job to tell her she cant abort it. She must live everyday for rest of her life as a reminder of what she did to get raped, its only fair. Or she could give up for adoption(but not to a gay, the kid might catch it) or put it kid in our fabulous foster where the child will no doubt have great life free from hardship.

For once, I'm actually hoping your trolling. If not, and I'm not kidding, get help. That's not a joke. If you are trolling, cut it out.

For once, I'm actually hoping your trolling. If not, and I'm not kidding, get help. That's not a joke. If you are trolling, cut it out.
That was obviously sarcasm. *watches the irony fly waaaaay up over your head*

The point is whether or not you enjoy that right doesn't mean they shouldn't. You get to make a choice. So should they. They aren't piping up about their sexuality, they are piping up about how people of their sexuality are denied rights. When we stop denying them rights, they'll have nothing to say. Want them to shut up? Vote against every initiative that comes up to deny them rights and encourage everyone you meet to do the same. Problem solved.
We're only bitching insofar as we're not being treated equally. Here in Canada we had same-sex marriage legalized, and nobody died. No anarchy, no chaos, no armageddon... and no gays asking for equals rights anymore.

Until our new Prime Minister brought back the issue, that is.

I for one was glad that from now on, my unmarried status was a result of my choosing NOT to get married, and not because I wasn't allowed because some fundies thought me being with a boy is icky. Now let's hope it stays that way... otherwise, the demands for equal rights will have to start all over again.

We're only bitching insofar as we're not being treated equally. Here in Canada we had same-sex marriage legalized, and nobody died. No anarchy, no chaos, no armageddon... and no gays asking for equals rights anymore.

Until our new Prime Minister brought back the issue, that is.

I for one was glad that from now on, my unmarried status was a result of my choosing NOT to get married, and not because I wasn't allowed because some fundies thought me being with a boy is icky. Now let's hope it stays that way... otherwise, the demands for equal rights will have to start all over again.

Yes. That is exactly my point. The people who claim they're not being bigotted when they tell the LGBT community to 'shut up' would better spend their time telling the legislature to treat that community equally. No inequality, no reason to speak out.

I gotta assume you were trying to be funny with all of that.

By the way, did you know you spelled your name incorrectly?
yes, I was and yes, I know thank you for pointing it out. Your only like the 10th person to do so.

That was obviously sarcasm. *watches the irony fly waaaaay up over your head*

I believe it was. The problem is that if he's not serious, it's trolling. If he is, it's a little unstable. I do assume it's trolling, but that doesn't make it okay. Their are easy ways to make sure that this kind of sarcasm doesn't cause a problem. Quotes "" can do it, so it's clear that it's not your opinion or sarcasm tags. However, in the absense, some people, unlike myself and the other poster who commented, will take it seriously and we'll have flaming and other nonsense.

Yes. That is exactly my point. The people who claim they're not being bigotted when they tell the LGBT community to 'shut up' would better spend their time telling the legislature to treat that community equally. No inequality, no reason to speak out.

Exactly.

But I think those people are under the impression that we queers are going to take "no" for an answer and just make a sad face and shut up. They would be wrong. I'm not gonna accept the restrictions of my civil rights on the basis of religious ou so-called moral beliefs to which I do not adhere.

Besides, judging and blaming others is all fun and that, but those who so staunchly oppose same-sex marriage and equal rights for gays really have nothing to give them the moral high ground.

That was obviously sarcasm. *watches the irony fly waaaaay up over your head*
Yes, it was. I was going for blatant sarcasm so no one would get confused, however I guess I need to try harder next time to be even more obvious. Sarcasm is the only response I can come up with to stupid arguments like the anti-gay, anti-abortion arguments that arent worth the dignity of an actual response.

I believe it was. The problem is that if he's not serious, it's trolling. If he is, it's a little unstable. I do assume it's trolling, but that doesn't make it okay. Their are easy ways to make sure that this kind of sarcasm doesn't cause a problem. Quotes "" can do it, so it's clear that it's not your opinion or sarcasm tags. However, in the absense, some people, unlike myself and the other poster who commented, will take it seriously and we'll have flaming and other nonsense.
Oh, come on, you sound like a mod now. If you think there's a possibility others will take it seriously and flame, just make a funny, witty comment asking him to confirm whether or not that was sarcasm.

I sometimes have similarly acid sarcastic posts, but I usually end up putting [/sarcasm] right after to be sure everyone knows what's what.

Yes, it was. I was going for blatant sarcasm so no one would get confused, however I guess I need to try harder next time to be even more obvious. Sarcasm is the only response I can come up with to stupid arguments like the anti-gay, anti-abortion arguments that arent worth the dignity of an actual response.
I find just adding a [/sarcasm] tag at the end of my post does the job nicely.

Oh, come on, you sound like a mod now. If you think there's a possibility others will take it seriously and flame, just make a funny, witty comment asking him to confirm whether or not that was sarcasm.

I sometimes have similarly acid sarcastic posts, but I usually end up putting [/sarcasm] right after to be sure everyone knows what's what.

Watch. I assure you that if this thread goes on for a couple more pages, you will get one or two. The mods know this and that is why they say such things. It's unnecessary when there are such easy ways to prevent a problem.

I find just adding a [/sarcasm] tag at the end of my post does the job nicely.
Agreed. Sarcasm is a difficult tool on a medium where people can't hear your voice. The tag solves that problem.

Exactly.

But I think those people are under the impression that we queers are going to take "no" for an answer and just make a sad face and shut up. They would be wrong. I'm not gonna accept the restrictions of my civil rights on the basis of religious ou so-called moral beliefs to which I do not adhere.

Besides, judging and blaming others is all fun and that, but those who so staunchly oppose same-sex marriage and equal rights for gays really have nothing to give them the moral high ground.

Agreed.

Just for the record:

I am considered (by others) a conservative christian. Nevertheless I am in favor of gay marriage. I just don't see how the idea of rightiousness/leading a life in worship of the Lord got mixed up with hate and suchlike. People just never seem to get the focus/scope of the Bible right.
Being non-judgemental and stop cursing, praying for others, caring for the ill, now that's Christianity. Opposing gay marriages is everyone's right, but is is not necessarily a christian thing to do. As long as gays don't cheat on one another, leave people under the age of 18 alone, don't curse, pray, read their Bibles, don't rape, mutually love one another, thay lead a life more chaste and godfearing than the average heterosexual union. (One of every two christian marriages ends in a divorce.)
The increase of Romance as the foundation of marriages (from the 1750ies onwards) has greatly complicated matters and limited the direct applicability of Bibletexts (not the indirect one though!) on relationships/marriages at hand. Even so, our judgementality has driven 8 % of our population into the arms of materialistic, shallow, and even selfish morals that one finds at gay parades.
In fact, I should hope that the institution of a gay marriage will promote the kind of gay unions that i just pointed out. -I know that some gays and lesbians find this 'an ettempt to impose my heterosexual morals on them', but hey, that's exactly what I hope to achieve and anyway, what's 'wrong' about my morals? (Who's in favor of cheating or child abuse?)

If only the number of abortions and divorces could decrease, and gays would lead a happily same-sex-married life, I would be a very happy, very conservative, non-judgemental child of the Lord. (-And still a sinner, but that's dogmas for you.)

Ah, but therin you betray yourself. I have said before that I'm opposed to the pointless argument. I'm not opposed to gay marraige.

Really? Then you were just lying when you said this?

I'm a christian. I'm against homosexual marraige, not because the bible says its wrong, but because I cannot see any way that homosexual marraige contributes to society as a group.

Bold mine.

The fact that I don't care about marraige in general may make my argument SEEM bigotted, but looking at it from MY point of view, they're not really missing anything.

Irrelevant. If there is something there that is a civil marriage, all citizens must have equal access to it.

That was obviously sarcasm. *watches the irony fly waaaaay up over your head*


Care to explain how any of this can be termed 'ironic'?

Agreed. Sarcasm is a difficult tool on a medium where people can't hear your voice. The tag solves that problem.
but then it ruins the fun of having people either question the meaning or outright believe it.:p but next time I'll give the tag thing a shot

but then it ruins the fun of having people either question the meaning or outright believe it.:p but next time I'll give the tag thing a shot

You don't get it. If you write that post with the intent that some people will outright believe it and react to it as such, it's trolling. It's a violation of the rules. Running afoul of that rule is rather easy to avoid with a simple tag. Just because something is entertaining doesn't make it legal.

You don't get it. If you write that post with the intent that some people will outright believe it and react to it as such, it's trolling. It's a violation of the rules. Running afoul of that rule is rather easy to avoid with a simple tag. Just because something is entertaining doesn't make it legal.
ok, thanks I think I got it;)

because same sex thing is not normal. in fact it is an ABnormal behaviour that has sometimes nothing to do with genetic disposition

i do not believe that it is a genetic disposition...and anyways how can it be abnormal behavior when there are gay penguins? It's apparently not just a homo sapien thing...

what do you mean by THAT?

i meant from sex that might involve tranferring semen to the body of an otherwise homosexual woman.

That's disgusting.

i do not believe that it is a genetic disposition...

Why not? There is certainly evidence that genetics may be a contributing factor to sexuality. Indeed, one would expect it to be.

What do you think causes a person's sexual orientation?

Why not? There is certainly evidence that genetics may be a contributing factor to sexuality. Indeed, one would expect it to be.

What do you think causes a person's sexual orientation?

Personally, I think it is determined by both genetic predisposition and social imprint.
Have you ever seen how birds behave? Their sexual preference is imprinted during an extremely short window almost right after they are born. They will follow the first moving thing that they see, as long as it makes a sound. After one or two days, they are imprinted with what they perceived to be their "parent". Once they become sexually mature, they will approach something ressembling that parent for mating... this imprint cannot ever be reversed.

Now, humans and mamal generally are a little more complicated in our behavioural structures and don't rely on imprints to recognise parents and later on potential partners, but I do think that some form of imprinting does take place in us as well when it comes to sexual preferences. But I daresay the causes are too complex to even try to eliminate, even if we wanted to.

My view on abortion:
If people do not get an abortion by a real doctor, if desperate enough, they will go to a "stree" doctor. Although many people argue not to legalize abortion because it kills people, or at least a fetus, which can't think yet, or at least not in the sense that we think of, I have little respect for those people who try to protect the fetus because if they are not a vegetarian, they are eating meat, which come from KILLING animals...also, eating eggs involves killing the to-be offspring of a chicken. KILLING.

I have little respect for those people who try to protect the fetus because if they are not a vegetarian, they are eating meat, which come from KILLING animals...also, eating eggs involves killing the to-be offspring of a chicken. KILLING.

I have 0 respect for people who think human and animal life are equal.

If you want to really infuriate conservatives, just bring up "Gay Abortion." That's sure to get their blood-boiling.

Sorry that this is off-topic but I just want to point out to Rhulian that the eggs we eat are unfertilised ie. no baby chickens in there.

Sorry that this is off-topic but I just want to point out to Rhulian that the eggs we eat are unfertilised ie. no baby chickens in there.

Except in the Philippines, where it's called Balut.

Personally, I think it is determined by both genetic predisposition and social imprint.
Have you ever seen how birds behave? Their sexual preference is imprinted during an extremely short window almost right after they are born. They will follow the first moving thing that they see, as long as it makes a sound. After one or two days, they are imprinted with what they perceived to be their "parent". Once they become sexually mature, they will approach something ressembling that parent for mating... this imprint cannot ever be reversed.

Now, humans and mamal generally are a little more complicated in our behavioural structures and don't rely on imprints to recognise parents and later on potential partners, but I do think that some form of imprinting does take place in us as well when it comes to sexual preferences. But I daresay the causes are too complex to even try to eliminate, even if we wanted to.


Sounds pretty reasonable. Like you said, I doubt there is "imprinting", per se, as there is in chicks, but early childhood experiences can certainly have an effect on sexuality - likely in ways we have no understanding whatsoever of. There is also evidence for a genetic component to sexuality (indeed, with something so complex, you would pretty much expect there to be). There are also other environmental factors that may, based on experiments, have an effect, such as exact hormone balance in the womb and the woman's body's response to 2nd/3rd/etc. pregnancies.


I have 0 respect for people who think human and animal life are equal.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Sorry that this is off-topic but I just want to point out to Rhulian that the eggs we eat are unfertilised

I got a fertilized one at the Kroger once. But I didn't eat it.....so I guess you're still right. =)

I got a fertilized one at the Kroger once. But I didn't eat it.....so I guess you're still right. =)
Sorry to go off topic for a sec, but I'm curious as to why. Was it because you wanted goo, or because you didn't agree with the thought of devouring a to-be chicken?

i think that gay marriage is wrong and kind of right because you should be able to merry someone that you love!

Sorry to go off topic for a sec, but I'm curious as to why. Was it because you wanted goo, or because you didn't agree with the thought of devouring a to-be chicken?

Well, there was blood in it, and the amniote was pretty big. It just didn't seem appealing.

i think that gay marriage is wrong and kind of right because you should be able to merry someone that you love!

Um.....huh? Where does the "wrong" come in?

Well, there was blood in it, and the amniote was pretty big. It just didn't seem appealing. No nice crunchy egg for Demp? :p
Meat eaters make some distinctions I can't quite follow, so I occationally get a bit curious.
Um.....huh? Where does the "wrong" come in?Good question that.

Achtung said it best. The sad truth is that gay marriage and abortion are nothing more than soapbox issues for Republican Regime -- something they can talk about and pretend to feel strongly about so they will won't have to discuss the total disasters that are their economic and foreign policies. Their also relatively easy for the stereotypical "dumb yankee" to understand; foreign policy is complex and confusing, but guys kissing and babykilling is easy enough to understand.

The truth is that, as Achtung said, legalizing gay marriage and abortion will have no negative impacts to straight couples or childbearing parents. However, they are easy issues for people to be uncomfortable about, and therefore easily exploited. The idea is that, just because they disagree with something, it must be wrong and therefore must be made illegal.

BTW, is anyone else totally PISSED OFF at the people on the Right that claim legalizing homosexuality is/was a step towards legal bestiality?

well if u dont look at it from a christian stand point why are these things bad? well gay marriage ( i dont care if they want to live together or even marry, not against that) can be bad because one who is married gets benifits from different sources, like health insurance, taxes, and other insurances. why is this bad? well most of married benefits were designed to promote families and help married couples save money so that they can get children and such. well unless they adopt not too many children in a house hold. also insurance costs would go up. next problem with this is also common mariage laws. a lot of states have it on the books that if u live together for "X" number of years u get certain marriage rights. this would cause a lot of problems in the law system and would take a lot of tax payers dollars to make right. also who is to say if 2 guys or gals living together jsut as room mates and one moves out for what ever reason, one of them says they were lovers and tries to take one to court. also anyone could marry anyone just for insurance purposes. not to say that men and women dont do this now, but it would be more serve if gay marriage was allowed. Also the courts would have new cases never seen before causing a lot of left vs. right wars that we have today and a lot of new laws would have to be passed.

now about abortion, why should we let someone who is stupid enough to get themselves pregnant with all the easy ways not to now a days to just o ok dont worry we can get u an abortion. If u are mature enough to have sex then u should be mature enough to live with the results. i can understand if its like rape or incest or the women is underage or if it could kill the mother. Also we have people in this country who would like to adopt children and wouldnt think its too hard to let one adopt the child u dont want. Also there is no telling the mental damage caused by abortions to the mother later on in life, many studies have shown that women have problems resulting from abortions.

that is just a couple of reasons that arent religious or rightwing.
Also there are benefits to both issues as well.

BTW dont bring in left or right wing crap when talkign a bout an issue just makes u look like a nut and doesnt help debating the topic.

I have 0 respect for people who think human and animal life are equal.

Well, then I guess you have 0 respect for me... by the way, I eat meat.

Keep abortion legal.
Make gay marriage legal.
Make christainity illegal.
And have some love!

well if u dont look at it from a christian stand point why are these things bad? well gay marriage ( i dont care if they want to live together or even marry, not against that) can be bad because one who is married gets benifits from different sources, like health insurance, taxes, and other insurances. why is this bad? well most of married benefits were designed to promote families and help married couples save money so that they can get children and such. well unless they adopt not too many children in a house hold. also insurance costs would go up. next problem with this is also common mariage laws. a lot of states have it on the books that if u live together for "X" number of years u get certain marriage rights. this would cause a lot of problems in the law system and would take a lot of tax payers dollars to make right. also who is to say if 2 guys or gals living together jsut as room mates and one moves out for what ever reason, one of them doesnt say they were lovers and tries to take one to court. also anyone could marry anyone just for insurance purposes. not to say that men and women dont do this now, but it would be more serve if gay marriage was allowed.

now about abortion, why should we let someone who is stupid enough to get themselves pregnant with all the easy ways not to now a days to just o ok dont worry we can get u an abortion. If u are mature enough to have sex then u should be mature enough to live with the results. i can understand if its like rape or incest or the women is underage or if it could kill the mother. Also we have people in this country who would like to adopt children and wouldnt think its too hard to let one adopt the child u dont want. Also there is no telling the mental damage caused by abortions to the mother later on in life, many studies have shown that women have problems resulting from abortions.

that is just a couple of resons that arent religious.


Most of the things you said are irrelevent, because less than 1% of people in america are gay/lesbian.

Also, about marrying anyone for insurance. People can do that now.

if 1% of the pop is gay/lesbian then it wouldnt be a big deal, also yes i said getting married for insurance happens now..... u may want to read better or all of it.

if 1% of the pop is gay/lesbian then it wouldnt be a big deal, also yes i said getting married for insurance happens now..... u may want to read better or all of it.
What does it matter if it's only one percent? Oppressing 1% of the people is just as bad as 10, 50 or even 80%.

if 1% of the pop is gay/lesbian then it wouldnt be a big deal, also yes i said getting married for insurance happens now..... u may want to read better or all of it.

I tried, but I can't....can we get like....Capitalization? The entire word "you" maybe? Perhaps cutting down on run-on sentences?

All laws are based on morality in some form. The question is how unanimous the morality is.


Good reply!

I understand the issue on abortion vs. condoms, but just because abortion is legal doesn't mean the government is obligated to pay for it. You're right: if somebody doesn't use a condom, they have only themselves to blame. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be permitted the right. Saving five bucks on condoms and spending thousands on an abortion may be stupidity, but stupidity on that level is not a crime.

And who gives a crap if gays marry for benefits -- straight couples do that too. If the problem is really the presence of children, wouldn't it be easier to just rewrite the insurance policy to favor parents instead of couples? Marriage is purely a religious ritual anyway.

Well I'm on the pro choice , pro freedom side of this issue but lets say I try to look at the other side of the issue.

One reason Gay people want to get married instead of be in civil unions (and there aparently is a legal definition not just semantics to consider). Is that the Government uses Tax benefits to promote marriage (being single for me is a tax liability, another good reason to find that girl of my dreams not that uncle sam had to give me a financial reason but they do).

The government uses a financial carrot to incourage marriage to basically promote procreation , its great that Gay people want to adopt and as far as I'm concerned they should be allowed to. But the financial benefits they offer a gay couple for marrying will basically not help the procreative process (not a problem in the US cause well we have a more open immigration process than Europe and Japan where this is becoming an issue).

Course the solution would be to take care of the kids we already have (like IL where Childrens health care is heading towards universal availability) and allowing Gay couples to adopt means that those children will have a chance to grow and prosper (read procreate there, although 10% or so of all children will probably be gay but thats okay doesn't hurt as much as the religious right think it will (thier presumption is well......... actually shouldn't speculate there).
The arguement against abortion well can't say why other than religious belief. Its not like it hurts the population demographics as far as I've read. But the reason I am pro choice is well frankly I wouldn't want the Government forcing me on the use of my body for anything but for some reason the Religious Right thinks that women deserve less. Its not like they are out there forcing people even to donate blood to save lives and where is that mandatory organ donor bill , but they are glad to subvert abortion rights by legislation.
just a thought
Steven

Achtung said it best. The sad truth is that gay marriage and abortion are nothing more than soapbox issues for Republican Regime -- something they can talk about and pretend to feel strongly about so they will won't have to discuss the total disasters that are their economic and foreign policies. Their also relatively easy for the stereotypical "dumb yankee" to understand; foreign policy is complex and confusing, but guys kissing and babykilling is easy enough to understand.
I totally agree with this.

WHAT GOOD DO YOUR RIGHTS DO YOU IF YOU ARE IN HELL!!!!
Have you ever considered that morals are more important then being "Free"??? First off it is the duty of Christians to try and prevent others from sinning, banning gay marriage prevents us from falling into scandal, saying something wrong is OK. If I have a choice between Hell, and restricted freedoms, only a hedonistic liberal idiot would choose his rights. As for abortion, I have said this many times, THE FETUS IS A LIFE!!! SAYING IT A MOTHER'S RIGHT TO DO WHAT SHE WANTS TO HER BODY IS HYPOCRITICAL, WHY IS SUICIDE ILLEGAL THEN???

I understand the issue on abortion vs. condoms, but just because abortion is legal doesn't mean the government is obligated to pay for it. You're right: if somebody doesn't use a condom, they have only themselves to blame. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be permitted the right. Saving five bucks on condoms and spending thousands on an abortion may be stupidity, but stupidity on that level is not a crime.

And who gives a crap if gays marry for benefits -- straight couples do that too. If the problem is really the presence of children, wouldn't it be easier to just rewrite the insurance policy to favor parents instead of couples? Marriage is purely a religious ritual anyway.

Apparently condoms are 100% effective, because if not this post is 100% ridiculous.

Well I'm on the pro choice , pro freedom side of this issue but lets say I try to look at the other side of the issue.

One reason Gay people want to get married instead of be in civil unions (and there aparently is a legal definition not just semantics to consider). Is that the Government uses Tax benefits to promote marriage (being single for me is a tax liability, another good reason to find that girl of my dreams not that uncle sam had to give me a financial reason but they do).

The government uses a financial carrot to incourage marriage to basically promote procreation , its great that Gay people want to adopt and as far as I'm concerned they should be allowed to. But the financial benefits they offer a gay couple for marrying will basically not help the procreative process (not a problem in the US cause well we have a more open immigration process than Europe and Japan where this is becoming an issue).

Course the solution would be to take care of the kids we already have (like IL where Childrens health care is heading towards universal availability) and allowing Gay couples to adopt means that those children will have a chance to grow and prosper (read procreate there, although 10% or so of all children will probably be gay but thats okay doesn't hurt as much as the religious right think it will (thier presumption is well......... actually shouldn't speculate there).
The arguement against abortion well can't say why other than religious belief. Its not like it hurts the population demographics as far as I've read. But the reason I am pro choice is well frankly I wouldn't want the Government forcing me on the use of my body for anything but for some reason the Religious Right thinks that women deserve less. Its not like they are out there forcing people even to donate blood to save lives and where is that mandatory organ donor bill , but they are glad to subvert abortion rights by legislation.
just a thought
Steven

Can you show me some evidence of the ridiculous assertion that the government needs to "incourage" us to procreate? What part of allowing spouses with or without children to continue to collect retirement benefits after the death of the working spouse has to do with procreation? What part of the treatment of the spouse as immediate family has to do with procreation? If marriage is about procreation why not require a fertility test prior to marriage? Why not deny the elderly the right to marry? We don't becuase procreation can happen with or without marriage and the government recognition of marriage has NOTHING to do with you're ability to shoot sperm into a vagina or birth a baby.

It would seem to me gay marriage shouldn't be something a Christian would like a nation to have is because, in effect, it's government endorsement, simply through acknowladging the certificates, thusly sending a clear signal of "Ok, homosexual relationships are protected by the government now". Which, you know, pretty much sends a message that to the government, homosexuality is ok. That is quite unbiblical, and in a nutshell, this is probably more or less the core of why it shouldn't be legalized and endorsed by the government.

WHAT GOOD DO YOUR RIGHTS DO YOU IF YOU ARE IN HELL!!!!
Have you ever considered that morals are more important then being "Free"??? First off it is the duty of Christians to try and prevent others from sinning, banning gay marriage prevents us from falling into scandal, saying something wrong is OK. If I have a choice between Hell, and restricted freedoms, only a hedonistic liberal idiot would choose his rights. As for abortion, I have said this many times, THE FETUS IS A LIFE!!! SAYING IT A MOTHER'S RIGHT TO DO WHAT SHE WANTS TO HER BODY IS HYPOCRITICAL, WHY IS SUICIDE ILLEGAL THEN???

Oh do hush. Not everyone believes in your Christian Hell; to those who don't your impassioned argument is ridiculous. You do not have a right to push your religious morals onto others. That is that.

And just because suicide is illegal doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I personally think that's ridiculous, who the heck are they going to prosecute in the event of a successful suicide? And in an unsuccessful one, is the suicidal person in any shape whatsoever to undergo a trial?

You are a silly person, and your caps are not needed, so take it down a notch, soldier.

It would seem to me gay marriage shouldn't be something a Christian would like a nation to have is because, in effect, it's government endorsement, simply through acknowladging the certificates, thusly sending a clear signal of "Ok, homosexual relationships are protected by the government now". Which, you know, pretty much sends a message that to the government, homosexuality is ok. That is quite unbiblical, and in a nutshell, this is probably more or less the core of why it shouldn't be legalized and endorsed by the government.


Your argument is demolished by the simple observation that not everyone in this country is a Christian. The message sent out is that the government does NOT endorse any particular religious viewpoint, which is exactly how it SHOULD be.

Amazon666 is stupid

First of all, the baby is an entirely seperate entity from the mother, and only a stupid, ignorant, moronic FOOL could see otherwise. It has seperate DNA, it grows independently, and the only connection to the mother is through the placenta, where it only exchanges nutrients and wastes.

Secondly, the debate is NOT whether we should "take peoples' rights", it is on what our specific rights ARE, so PLEASE try not to make the people you don't like sound bad with your faulty wording.

well gay marriage ( i dont care if they want to live together or even marry, not against that) can be bad because one who is married gets benifits from different sources, like health insurance, taxes, and other insurances.

... benefits that straight couples, regardless of childbearing, can already get. Suggesting that homosexual couples getting them would be a problem while heterosexual couples getting them is not is absolutely ludicrous.

Meanwhile, on the tax issue - most married couples pay *more* in taxes than they would if they were both filing as singles, so the "tax benefit" stuff is pretty much wrong.

why is this bad? well most of married benefits were designed to promote families and help married couples save money so that they can get children and such.

Really? Care to prove that? Many of the married benefits were actually originally designed because women were seen practically as property - so that a woman had to be married to really be able to get around in the world. It was just as much to protect her as to protect any possible children. But, in the end, most of the current marriage protections are designed to make things more convenient for the couple and the government regarding ownership of property, debts, etc.

also insurance costs would go up.

Then get rid of shared insurance for *everyone*, not just "teh gays".

(Actually, don't. I need my fiance's insurance, LOL)

next problem with this is also common mariage laws. a lot of states have it on the books that if u live together for "X" number of years u get certain marriage rights. this would cause a lot of problems in the law system and would take a lot of tax payers dollars to make right.

Very few states actually still have such laws, but it wouldn't take a huge change to keep it from being exploited too much. Hell, my state wastes money on voting on whether or not to force all restaurants to carry sweet tea, so I don't think the money spent on creating equality would be bad.

Also the courts would have new cases never seen before causing a lot of left vs. right wars that we have today and a lot of new laws would have to be passed.

You know, the same thing could have been said for giving black people equal rights. Isn't it a good thing we didn't shy away then?

now about abortion, why should we let someone who is stupid enough to get themselves pregnant with all the easy ways not to now a days

Abstinence is the only way to guarrantee that you won't get pregnant - unless there is an immaculate conception. All birth control methods have failure rates - and 60-some % of all women who get abortions were using birth control at the time.

Also we have people in this country who would like to adopt children and wouldnt think its too hard to let one adopt the child u dont want.

Is that why there are millions of children awaiting adoption?

Also there is no telling the mental damage caused by abortions to the mother later on in life, many studies have shown that women have problems resulting from abortions.

No more direct problems than problems arriving from carrying a pregnancy to term, and no more indirect problems than those caused by any hard decision.

Marriage is purely a religious ritual anyway.

Then why can my atheist fiance get married? Why could we go right down to the justice of the peace now and, without involving any religion at all, get married?

One reason Gay people want to get married instead of be in civil unions (and there aparently is a legal definition not just semantics to consider). Is that the Government uses Tax benefits to promote marriage (being single for me is a tax liability, another good reason to find that girl of my dreams not that uncle sam had to give me a financial reason but they do).

This is actually totally incorrect. Most married couples pay *more* in taxes after marriage than before because of the way the tax system is set up. It is generally referred to as the "marriage penalty." ((This is true in the US anyways, and in many European countries. This fact has been largely listed as a possible cause for the fact that less people are getting married these days))

First off it is the duty of Christians to try and prevent others from sinning,

Funny, I'm a Christian and I've never been aware of such a duty. I can certainly try to convince others not to sin, but I have no duty - indeed it would be against my religion - to force it upon them.

Someone probably already mentioned this--I don't care to look through all the pages--but it's kind of a mad, mad idea to start a topic about both homosexual marriage and abortion. Each topic fills pages beyond readability on its own.

Someone probably already mentioned this--I don't care to look through all the pages--but it's kind of a mad, mad idea to start a topic about both homosexual marriage and abortion. Each topic fills pages beyond readability on its own.

And yet they always seem related and seem to come up in each other's threads. And, when it comes right down to it, they both tend to involve people trying to force their own religions upon others. *shrug*

I think that everybody should be the right of marriage, the people who are gay does not choose to be gay, and for that gay marriage should be allowed(because represents the love between two people).:fluffle:

Your argument is demolished by the simple observation that not everyone in this country is a Christian. The message sent out is that the government does NOT endorse any particular religious viewpoint, which is exactly how it SHOULD be.

Didn't the original question ask why many people don't like Gay Marriage? Not everyone in America is a Christian, but a whole lot of them are. Therefore, I see no problems with bringing up a simple idea based on Christianity to demonstrate why many in America may be opposed to gay marriage

This Christian thinks that gay people should be allowed to marry, because it's one of their rights. :) They're not hurting anybody are they? Now abortion is another matter. Even if it is from rape or something like that, it is not fair to punish the baby for something that is not his/her fault. :mad: It is murder :( no matter what.

You know how World Leaders, etc are obbsessed w/ overpopulation? The solution is right in fron of their faces: ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION.

Sounds pretty reasonable. Like you said, I doubt there is "imprinting", per se, as there is in chicks, but early childhood experiences can certainly have an effect on sexuality - likely in ways we have no understanding whatsoever of. There is also evidence for a genetic component to sexuality (indeed, with something so complex, you would pretty much expect there to be). There are also other environmental factors that may, based on experiments, have an effect, such as exact hormone balance in the womb and the woman's body's response to 2nd/3rd/etc. pregnancies.

Actually I know a set of identical twins: one of them is gay, one is straight and so it shows how slight the difference can be. I know it isn't a choice because the one that is gay really doesn't want to be; he says it makes life harder for him in many ways, especially socially.

fucking hols:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :u: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

ass hols:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :
:upyours:

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

You know how World Leaders, etc are obbsessed w/ overpopulation? The solution is right in fron of their faces: ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE AND ABORTION.
Gay marriage is even better, because it removes the need for abortion. :p

Well, not everybody's into it, so I guess all you breeders better invest some money in condom companies' stock and contraceptive pills.

Narnia, you need to work on all that anger. You obviously have issues.

Narnia, you need to work on all that anger. You obviously have issues.

I thought giving people the finger twenty-or-so times and swearing at them was normal nowadays... lol :headbang:

I thought giving people the finger twenty-or-so times and swearing at them was normal nowadays... lol :headbang:
Maybe we just grew up in different environments :p

Maybe we just grew up in different environments :p

No, we're probably of different age groups... :p

No, we're probably of different age groups... :p
Well, I'm 22. Not old enough yet to forget what my mother taught me about being polite and kind.

Because it doesn't take into account the feelings of people, rather the possibilty of infrigement upon their rights. Lets people do anything that doesn't infringe upon the rights of another individual.

Still a bit based in morality, but not half as much.

And how are the feelings being impacted by two guys getting married? are their feelings still affected when you have people having those 24 hour weddings? How about those who marry because they fucked up their contraception? how about those who just marry for money?

I mean, if we're going to be fair, shouldn't tbe also be worried about heterosexuals who don't take marriage seriously, then try to pass laws ensuring it doesn't happen? because it seens there are alot of double standards out there.

Well, I'm 22. Not old enough yet to forget what my mother taught me about being polite and kind.

lol and yet it seems that the teenagers are too old to remember... and they still live in the same house as their parents... :confused:

... because it seens there are alot of double standards out there.

Those advocating forcing their so-called morality on other often have double standards. Like those holier-than-thou conservative white christian heterosexual males(they know who they are) who rant about gays' promiscuous lifestyle, while happily cheating on their wife regularly, for example.

And how are the feelings being impacted by two guys getting married? are their feelings still affected when you have people having those 24 hour weddings? How about those who marry because they fucked up their contraception? how about those who just marry for money?

I mean, if we're going to be fair, shouldn't tbe also be worried about heterosexuals who don't take marriage seriously, then try to pass laws ensuring it doesn't happen? because it seens there are alot of double standards out there.

Could you kind of clarify your point? Either you're sarcastic or serious and I can't tell which...

lol and yet it seems that the teenagers are too old to remember... and they still live in the same house as their parents... :confused:
Bah, youth these days, I tell ya ;)

It's not only Christianity....other religionz like Islam, Hinduism are also against Gay Marriages and Abortions.

Alot of the rules in Islam, like Sharia law are actually based on the Torah; Islam is also not such a clean cut as people like to make out, there are cultural things you must take into account as well - as for Abortion, according to Islam, its ok up to 40 days after conception, as the featus hasn't been given a soul.

As for Hinduism - I very much doubt it, if there was ever a 'poofter centric' religion, Hinduism would be it; you can interprete those scriptures in many different ways, depending on your cultural background.

Christianism, like most or all religions, is collectivist, just like those wonderful ideologies of fascism and communism. They do not recognize individuality, and are against freedom of choice and civil liberties in general. They do not accept that there are different ways of thinking and refuse to let people just mind their own business, because more freedom of action and thinking means that more people will disagree with them, and they may lose their power. That's why governments which are in theory secular are as moralistic as the religious ones. The punishment for the Arian women which aborted in the Nazi Germany was death penalty and gays are regularly jailed in countries like China and Cuba.

You do realise that it was 1997 when homosexuality was removed off the 'mental conditions' in China, and made perfectly legal; heck, on BBC a few weeks ago, there was a documentry on homosexuality in China, and how universities are now also teaching gender classes that cover homosexuality and how it is perfectly normal and natural.

Don't be surprised that China will get gay marriage before America - America, land of the free and chock to the rafters with religious nuts.

Woman should not be able to have an abortion for the same reason that people are not allowed to kill people. People say "She has a right to her body" and I say it is not her body she is casting judgement over. It is the body of the embryo. She does not have that right. Humans do not have that right. The right to decide when a life ends. (And yes, before you assume I am in favour of the death penelty and expansion of gun control, I am not)

Gay marriage is for me as a Christian, glorification of a sin. Basicly I believe that homosexual sex is a sin. What that doesnt mean is I'm a homophobe. Homophobes are people who fear/distrust/hate homosexuals. I don't do any of those things. Homosexual sex is a sin, so homosexuals are sinners. But hey guess what, so am I and so is everyone else on this forum. There's no point in fearing them or hating them because of a sin, since we would have to fear and hate ourselves too. However, having said that, I may not hate them for their sin, but I'd oppose glorifying it in a state regonised institution. Particually since said institution was originally religious and in my view created by God. Its basicly distorting what God made marriage to do.

So says the person who has never been in a same sex relationship and experienced the love that comes from it.

You do realise that it was 1997 when homosexuality was removed off the 'mental conditions' in China, and made perfectly legal; heck, on BBC a few weeks ago, there was a documentry on homosexuality in China, and how universities are now also teaching gender classes that cover homosexuality and how it is perfectly normal and natural.

Don't be surprised that China will get gay marriage before America - America, land of the free and chock to the rafters with religious nuts.

Well China's economy is growing so fast that soon we'll be looking up to them anyway...

It IS her body she's controling here. If it wasn't, somebody might come by your door tomorrow and force you to surgically remove one of your kidneys, as another person needs it to survive.
It is here body, and if she wants to have something removed from it, it's her right to do so. But it's her right alone, nobody elses.



If I remember correctly, it was regarded as a sin and deeply heretic for women to speak in church. Paul made a very clear statement about that, much clearer in fact than anything about homosexuality in the NT. Do you have a problem with women being priest, therefore?

As for marriage being created by god, marriage was around a long time indeed before religion, and especially before Christianity. It is a social construct, a legally binding contract, nothing more.


But at the same time, lets remember this little tit bit; Paul wasn't Jesus, Paul's opinion on homosexuality, role of women etc. is more valid, and carry's no more weight than my opinion on the matter - assuming one gives a flying continental about the bible in the first place.

Allowing gay marriage =/= glorifying it

Like, it really isn't. No one's going to be handing out "Marry your best same-sex friend" pamphlets and going on and on about how wonderful massaging the prostate is. Seriously.

We allow jury nullification and Make My Day laws, and that doesn't mean we're glorifying those things, either. Think about everything that's legal -- is all that seriously being GLORIFIED?

Ok. Lets look at it this way. Is it healthy for society as a whole to allow something that has no demonstrable positive effect on the world to occur?

I have repeatedly seen "society as a majority" mentioned in this thread, and so, taking that thinking a bit farther, I reached the question I just posed. Now for another question. Who decides what "demonstrably positive to society" means? The majority? Bureauracrats? The Government? Those affected by the decision?

I think Maggy Thacher put it best, "there is no such thing as society".

Could you kind of clarify your point? Either you're sarcastic or serious and I can't tell which...

How so? want to whine about us 'gays' getting married, and might possibly take it seriously, how about getting that heterosexual lifestyle in order; the one that seems to degrade women, turn a blind eye to domestic violence and sexual abuse, and celebrate cheap 24 hour marriages and those done through 'game shows' such as 'the bachelor'.

Didn't the original question ask why many people don't like Gay Marriage? Not everyone in America is a Christian, but a whole lot of them are. Therefore, I see no problems with bringing up a simple idea based on Christianity to demonstrate why many in America may be opposed to gay marriage

The problem is that an individual's religion is rather irrelevant. We have this crazy thing called the 1st Amendment to prevent the government from restricting religion and religion from controlling government. If you don't have something better than, "My religion says so," to back up a legal choice, then you don't have anything.


Actually I know a set of identical twins: one of them is gay, one is straight and so it shows how slight the difference can be. I know it isn't a choice because the one that is gay really doesn't want to be; he says it makes life harder for him in many ways, especially socially.

You say this as if it somehow contradicts what I said. It really doesn't, since I explicitly pointed out that sexuality is most likely affected by a variety of factors.

Oh do hush. Not everyone believes in your Christian Hell; to those who don't your impassioned argument is ridiculous. You do not have a right to push your religious morals onto others. That is that.

And just because suicide is illegal doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I personally think that's ridiculous, who the heck are they going to prosecute in the event of a successful suicide? And in an unsuccessful one, is the suicidal person in any shape whatsoever to undergo a trial?

You are a silly person, and your caps are not needed, so take it down a notch, soldier.
OK, so lets say I don't believe in the cliff I just walked off. Does it make my death false, because I don't BELIEVE in cliffs? AS I said, it is hypocritical to make suicide illegal, but say a woman has the right to her body, geez people...

First of all, the baby is an entirely seperate entity from the mother, and only a stupid, ignorant, moronic FOOL could see otherwise. It has seperate DNA, it grows independently, and the only connection to the mother is through the placenta, where it only exchanges nutrients and wastes.

Secondly, the debate is NOT whether we should "take peoples' rights", it is on what our specific rights ARE, so PLEASE try not to make the people you don't like sound bad with your faulty wording.
Amen

"Originally Posted by Uzbehderia
First of all, the baby is an entirely seperate entity from the mother, and only a stupid, ignorant, moronic FOOL could see otherwise. It has seperate DNA, it grows independently, and the only connection to the mother is through the placenta, where it only exchanges nutrients and wastes.

Secondly, the debate is NOT whether we should "take peoples' rights", it is on what our specific rights ARE, so PLEASE try not to make the people you don't like sound bad with your faulty wording."

DOUBLE AMEN!

OK, so lets say I don't believe in the cliff I just walked off. Does it make my death false, because I don't BELIEVE in cliffs? AS I said, it is hypocritical to make suicide illegal, but say a woman has the right to her body, geez people...

Agreed. Suicide should be legal as well. You're preaching to the choir. Preach on, brother. What else will you legalize?

AS I said, it is hypocritical to make suicide illegal, but say a woman has the right to her body, geez people...

What makes you think that all or even most pro-choice people agree with laws against suicide? I, for one, am certainly in favor of "death with dignity" laws like the one in Ohio.

It would seem to me gay marriage shouldn't be something a Christian would like a nation to have is because, in effect, it's government endorsement, simply through acknowladging the certificates, thusly sending a clear signal of "Ok, homosexual relationships are protected by the government now". Which, you know, pretty much sends a message that to the government, homosexuality is ok. That is quite unbiblical, and in a nutshell, this is probably more or less the core of why it shouldn't be legalized and endorsed by the government.
That's irrelevant. It's not a Christian government.

WHAT GOOD DO YOUR RIGHTS DO YOU IF YOU ARE IN HELL!!!!
Have you ever considered that morals are more important then being "Free"??? First off it is the duty of Christians to try and prevent others from sinning, banning gay marriage prevents us from falling into scandal, saying something wrong is OK.
Hell is not proven to exist, but reality is. It is the duty of Christians to prevent others from sinning through the power of words, not the power of government. QED.

I don't know why I do this. Conservatives never answer logical refutations on these issues.

I think Maggy Thacher put it best, "there is no such thing as society".
I think Maggie was both completely wrong and a hypocrite. Society is definitely real. Where do you get your food and transport from?

I think Maggie was both completely wrong and a hypocrite. Society is definitely real. Where do you get your food and transport from?

Other people.

Society is an abstract thing that arises when people interact. It is impossible to make a concrete definition of a society.

Other people.

Society is an abstract thing that arises when people interact. It is impossible to make a concrete definition of a society.Eh.. Didn't you just offer one?

Anyway, a society, in my mind, is any group of people beyond family.

Eh.. Didn't you just offer one?

Anyway, a society, in my mind, is any group of people beyond family.

No, I offered a definition of the abstract concept that is society. I could not possibly accurately define the limits of an actual society.

Just to see if it proves my point, why can a family not be a society?

I agree, why should it be anyone's business if people of the same-sex were to get married, or a woman were to get abortion? If opposite-sex (don't know what to call it) marriages aren't considered 'harming' anyone, what's the difference with same-sex marriages? If they want to get married, then fine. Why should anyone have the right to say that they can not? It's just so ridiculous. And if a woman doesn't wish to have a baby, then she should have a say on what happens to it.

Homosexuality is an unnatural and wrong act. No government should be supporting an act that is wrong. The only exception for abortion should be life of the mother. Every other attemt is murder. many say, "Women have the right to an abortion because she should have control over her own body." I agree with that. If she wants to abort her body, that is perfectly alright with me. However, we are not talking about her body, are we? It sounds like the persons body she is aborting belongs to someone else. Not to mention the fact that she did not seem to worry too much about the state of her body when she let that man (or several men) climb on top of her. The reason I do not support the cases of rape is because it is not the baby's fault that its biological father is a scumbag. Maybe we should start executing rapists an see if the idea of rape sounds fun to someone. We should be killing the rapists, not the babies.:upyours: :mp5: :cool:

Homosexuality is an unnatural and wrong act....
:upyours: :mp5: :cool:

Beg to disagree. Do you have any evidence? No... All you can say is: "it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong... Give me one shred of evidence for once.

From the emotes you used I can see you are a nice, loving, christian who follows the bible very closely.

Aye, Kirkico, say _why_ you believe homosexualiy's wrong? And provide evidence for your opinions on abortion, while you're at it :)

Elgesh']Aye, Kirkico, say _why_ you believe homosexualiy's wrong? And provide evidence for your opinions on abortion, while you're at it :)

But he can't so he'll just ignore our comments... ;)

Homosexuality is an unnatural and wrong act.

(a) Homosexuality isn't an act, any more than "blue eyes" is an act. It is a trait, as is heterosexuality or bisexuality.

(b) How can something that occurs in nature, with no interference, be unnatural?

(c) Why is it wrong?

No government should be supporting an act that is wrong.

Really? I think letting people like you vote is wrong. I guess that means we should abolish your vote, right?

many say, "Women have the right to an abortion because she should have control over her own body." I agree with that. If she wants to abort her body, that is perfectly alright with me. However, we are not talking about her body, are we?

We are talking about her right to decide whether or not to incubate something in her womb. So, yes, it is her body that is in question here.

Not to mention the fact that she did not seem to worry too much about the state of her body when she let that man (or several men) climb on top of her.

Ah, the dirty whore argument. Yes, you're right, you know, since all pregnancies are caused by consensual sex. You're also right because, you know, married women or those in monogamous relationships never have abortions.

Homosexuality is an unnaturalIt occours in nature & isn't subject to human alteration. Ergo it's perfectly natural.
and wrong act.Who died & made you supreme moral dictator?No government should be supporting an act that is wrong.I just bet you were dead against the illegal unprovoked aggression against a soverign, non-threatning nation, right?

Ang again, who died & made you the supreme dictator of morality?The only exception for abortion should be life of the mother. Every other attemt is murder.Technocally, it's perfectly similar to removing a tumour. No-one performs abortions so late in a pregnancy that the thingy in the would-be mother can be considered an infant. The stuff getting removed is just a collection of unwanted goo, that can potentially grow into a human being.
There's no debate that an 11th hour abortion is unethical.

many say, "Women have the right to an abortion because she should have control over her own body." I agree with that. If she wants to abort her body, that is perfectly alright with me. However, we are not talking about her body, are we? It sounds like the persons body she is aborting belongs to someone else.And that's just it. We aren't talking about the body of someone else. We're talking about what could become the body of someone else.
Even if you think masturbation is wrong & don't do it, your body still does the same as an abortion. It rids you of your semen every so often & there's nothing you can do to stop it (short of surgery). The only difference here is the goo you eject is even more pre-human than what's removed in an abortion. If you're not against one, it's hypocritical to be against the other.Not to mention the fact that she did not seem to worry too much about the state of her body when she let that man (or several men) climb on top of her.The primary role of sex among humans, is to secure & strengthen social bonds. And it's not just humans that are build this way.

Pregnancy is just a bonus - sometimes. And while it's easy to protect oneself, not everyone knows how (largely thanks to abstinence nutters), and no method is 100% effective. Unwanted pregnancies cannot be avoided in humans. Not unless you maim the lot of us.

Incidentially, only a single sperm can fertilise an egg. So your insinuation that unwanted pregnancies unly happens to orgy-loving sluts (c), is just plain gender bashing, which quite naturally leads me to call you a ****. I mean, why not? - You obviously have no balls.The reason I do not support the cases of rape is because it is not the baby's fault that its biological father is a scumbag. Maybe we should start executing rapists an see if the idea of rape sounds fun to someone. We should be killing the rapists, not the babies.:upyours: :mp5: :cool:Maybe you should just get a life & finish 5th grade.

(c) 2006, American Christian Right.

Other people.

Society is an abstract thing that arises when people interact. It is impossible to make a concrete definition of a society.
Society is not an abstract concept. The institutions that make it up are very real. The military is real (Maggie liked her military). Corporations are real. Government is real. And so on and so on. Thus society is real.

Homosexuality is an unnatural and wrong act. No government should be supporting an act that is wrong.
I agree that no government should be supporting an act that is wrong. But homosexuality is not wrong. Where do you get that from? Religion? Well that requires faith which shouldn't be a basis for government policy, because it cannot be discussed logically or objectively.

I think Maggie was both completely wrong and a hypocrite. Society is definitely real. Where do you get your food and transport from?

From the market; the place where buyers and sellers meet, and swap money for goods and services.