NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, on a bit of a side note, that I think would fit in this thread (Im not sure if it merits its own or not)

Me and a few friends were debating whether Homosexuality is more on the Nature side or the Nurture side of the "Nature vs Nurture" spectrum...

One friend says that its more upbringing, and therefore "Nurture"

and another says its entirely Genetic and therefore "Nature"...

I say trying to separate the two is pointless, and that you will have people that fall on both sides of the spectrum...

what do you think?
Lefties: Nature or Nurture?
Answer: Who cares?

I feel the same way about Homosexuality. Why does it seem so important to make the distinction? You should tell your friends that there are metaphysical questions of much greater import to spend their time reflecting on.

Lefties: Nature or Nurture?Answer: Who cares?I feel the same way about Homosexuality. Why does it seem so important to make the distinction? You should tell your friends that there are metaphysical questions of much greater import to spend their time reflecting on.Yes. I have never bothered studying to see what caused homosexuality. I guess it can be useful in a general research way, but all scientific studies have that importance.I just can't bring myself to care about why people want to do that thing they do in the bedroom. If we found out receiving too much westerly sun turns people into shoe fetishists, would it matter?

Yes. I have never bothered studying to see what caused homosexuality. I guess it can be useful in a general research way, but all scientific studies have that importance.I just can't bring myself to care about why people want to do that thing they do in the bedroom. If we found out receiving too much westerly sun turns people into shoe fetishists, would it matter?

I have to say I am interested in it - but that's because I'm a psychologist and I'm interested in all aspects of human behaviour. Sexuality plays a big role in our lives, because we are sexual creatures, because there seems to be some evidence it interacts with gender differences and because it affects how others react. Therefore it is worth studying, the same way that personality is worth studying, or other individual differences are. Not because we can or should maniopulate or change it but because it tells us more about who we are as human beings.

So I'm all for research, I'm entierly against using said research for political ends however.

I have to say I am interested in it - but that's because I'm a psychologist and I'm interested in all aspects of human behaviour. Sexuality plays a big role in our lives, because we are sexual creatures, because there seems to be some evidence it interacts with gender differences and because it affects how others react. Therefore it is worth studying, the same way that personality is worth studying, or other individual differences are. Not because we can or should maniopulate or change it but because it tells us more about who we are as human beings.

So I'm all for research, I'm entierly against using said research for political ends however.

As a psychologist, would you know if people's sexual preferences changes over time? Or if it is something that will remain throughout their lifes?
I'm not even talking about sexual orientation, just prefernces, like boobs over bum, or oral over vaginal/anal, or even fetishes?
I'm wondering that because I can't help thinking that if those preferences are stable rather than changing, surely they're can't altogether to be traced back to upbringing? And wouldn't that be similar to orientation?

Was he human?
Of course.


If he was human - he was party to the sins of the flesh.
Party to and affected by temptation like any of us but resisted. He was tempted by the best and did not succumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temptation_of_Christ


If he wasn't party to the sins of the flesh - he wasn't human.

He was of course, also it did not mean he ahd to partake in all the sins to know what they were about.


Now - according to the Bible story, we KNOW he was human, and we also know that the 'without sin' claim is metaphorical. We KNOW he sinned, because humans sin - and his crucifixion would have been the comedy event of the year if he was without sin.

It is not metaphorical and he did not sin. He was a spiritually perfect human being.


We KNOW he sinned, because humans sin - and his crucifixion would have been the comedy event of the year if he was without sin.

His crucifixion was for ordinary humans to absolve them of there sins. It also certainly was not a comedy.

It's just what my faith says (I'm Catholic). But I'm not gonna go apeshit if someone were to let gays marry. They just allowed it in Iowa, which I live about 10 miles from (I live in Omaha, NE) I am not going to rush over there and give a shit.

Yeah, you'll say, "What right do you have to use your faith to judge others?"

I say, "What right do you then have to use your opinions to consider mine to be automatically false? Your opinions are of equal value to mine."

I can't prove why I think gay marriage is wrong, I just believe it because it's a part of my faith. Doesn't make me stupid, doesn't make me a bad person, doesn't make me a bigot. Just means I got a different belief.

Well said. Me too. I don't even care if they bond together either.

I keep saying don't call it marriage because it invokes the church whether you like it or not.

Call it a civil partnership, domestic union, whatever don't call it a marriage. As you have seen marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. We have enough lawyers on this site there must be a way to make domestic unions to have all the same powers and marriage without calling it marriage. You will get a ton less push back.

Well said. Me too. I don't even care if they bond together either.

I keep saying don't call it marriage because it invokes the church whether you like it or not.

Call it a civil partnership, domestic union, whatever don't call it a marriage. As you have seen marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. We have enough lawyers on this site there must be a way to make domestic unions to have all the same powers and marriage without calling it marriage. You will get a ton less push back.

If marriage inherently involves the Church, then all civil marriage is illegal in the United States.

I'm glad you agree. Although I'm a little concerned at the amount of time you wasted.

I disagree strongly. I was just waiting for the bait. A soon as some starts talking about it, I think you get the Bat Signal or maybe the G-n-I signal. I knew it would take seconds or minutes and then poof you would be there. Well done by the way you never disappoint.

Alright, that's fine, but does that make gay marriage right? Is something automatically morally right if it is allowed by law?

Is existence inclusive to being morally right?

Again very well said.

Well said. Me too. I don't even care if they bond together either.

I keep saying don't call it marriage because it invokes the church whether you like it or not.

Call it a civil partnership, domestic union, whatever don't call it a marriage. As you have seen marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. We have enough lawyers on this site there must be a way to make domestic unions to have all the same powers and marriage without calling it marriage. You will get a ton less push back.
Well, the sad part for you is that you don't get to dictate the rules for people outside your church.

Another sadness for you is that worrying about "push back" from you and the likes of you is not a primary concern for those fighting for equal rights for all people. Your feelings about a word are not as important, let alone more important, than other people's legal standing in society and access to equal protection of the law.

If anyone is "pushing back" here it, I would say it is supporters of gay rights against people like you, who wish to stymie social progress and prevent others from improving their lot in life for no apparent purpose than your own superficial privileges.

Those privileges, by the way, did not exist until people like you invented them and are claimed by no one but people like you. So it seems to me that the "just don't call it marriage" argument amounts to little more than "you shouldn't be allowed to be married because I say so." Guess what our response to that is always going to be.

You advise us who fight for rights to accommodate you so we'll get less "push back" from you? Well, two can play that game, TB. If you stop bitching about that one little word, you'll experience less "push back" from those who are fighting for a real legal right in the US.

Understand that what is at stake for gays seeking equal rights is infinitely more vital and valuable than your jealousy over a word. Citing "just don't call it marriage because we call dibs on that word for ourselves" expresses a jealousy over a privilege so petty and small that it is an insult to the entire movement for the civil and human rights of gays.

If marriage inherently involves the Church, then all civil marriage is illegal in the United States.

It is important to disassociate for lack of a better word legal with moral. Civil marriages are legal in most countries. Moral is totally another story. Sure I suppose between a man and woman the would be morally right as well.

Which is why I keep saying don't call it a marriage.

The vast majority of American don't care. It boils down to people with an axe to grind on one side or the other.

Take prop 8 for example.

Pros feel they are defending the Bible and the Christian way of life.

Cons feel that marriage should be a rights based thing

The middle ground is don't call it a marriage when it is not between a man and woman.

Diffused. Pros defended the Bible and Cons get to live with all the same benefits as marriage without the nonsense.

Again very well said.
Very well said as to what? Rather than cherrypick sentences that you think somehow express your inner thoughts, why don't you address his argument in its entirety? If you agree with his thinking so much, maybe you can explain his bizarre and ridiculous assertion that the Constitution can't be proven scientifically.

The argument you think is being so well expressed is garbage, and that has already been addressed. If you have a good defense of it, maybe you should look at the whole exchange so far and then present that defense.

It is important to disassociate for lack of a better word legal with moral. Civil marriages are legal in most countries. Moral is totally another story. Sure I suppose between a man and woman the would be morally right as well.

Which is why I keep saying don't call it a marriage.

The vast majority of American don't care. It boils down to people with an axe to grind on one side or the other.

Take prop 8 for example.

Pros feel they are defending the Bible and the Christian way of life.

Cons feel that marriage should be a rights based thing

The middle ground is don't call it a marriage when it is not between a man and woman.

Diffused. Pros defended the Bible and Cons get to live with all the same benefits as marriage without the nonsense.
No, that is not the middle ground. That is just throwing a sop to bigots. Separate is not equal, and that has already been established in US law. Since US law governs what is recognized as marriage in the US, then you can talk about "moral" all you like -- legal is all that matters. And the future will be that gay marriage will be legal in the US eventually. Why? Because there is no legal reason not to go there, and plenty of legal and social reason to do it. Your private religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Well, the sad part for you is that you don't get to dictate the rules for people outside your church.

Awhh sorry that is where you are wrong. Christian are still complaining about Rowe V. Wade several decade afterwords and mark the day of the worst legal decision in American history. I hear it just about every Sunday. They have Marches and all that. It goes on and on and on. Christians make up a huge amount of the voting population. If they choose to vote along with other Christians it becomes a huge wave.


Another sadness for you is that worrying about "push back" from you and the likes of you is not a primary concern for those fighting for equal rights for all people. Your feelings about a word are not as important, let alone more important, than other people's legal standing in society and access to equal protection of the law.

This is why Prop 8 came about and Arizona has a similar one. New York will likely never allow Gay Civil Unions. It is important to those who feel they are defending their church and their way of life. It will continue to be an issue and if only your side would modify their tactics slightly you would get what you are after. Iowa may be a short lived decision we shall see.


If anyone is "pushing back" here it, I would say it is supporters of gay rights against people like you, who wish to stymie social progress and prevent others from improving their lot in life for no apparent purpose than your own superficial privileges.

I do not wish to Stymie[by the way, great word you do not hear this enough] anyone's progress or lot in life.


Those privileges, by the way, did not exist until people like you invented them and are claimed by no one but people like you. So it seems to me that the "just don't call it marriage" argument amounts to little more than "you shouldn't be allowed to be married because I say so." Guess what our response to that is always going to be.

What I am trying to say is there is middle ground. Use it to your advantage.


You advise us who fight for rights to accommodate you so we'll get less "push back" from you? Well, two can play that game, TB. If you stop bitching about that one little word, you'll experience less "push back" from those who are fighting for a real legal right in the US.

It is not just me and that is the problem. Words matter sometimes. Seek away around an impediment. Take a different route. Marriage to Christian means something sacred.


Understand that what is at stake for gays seeking equal rights is infinitely more vital and valuable than your jealousy over a word. Citing "just don't call it marriage because we call dibs on that word for ourselves" expresses a jealousy over a privilege so petty and small that it is an insult to the entire movement for the civil and human rights of gays.

I am trying to show you and all that there is an express lane to where you want to get. Why must you go over the bumpy, unpaved, tree covered, swampy path to get there? Why force the issue at all? Modify your approach?

Seems to make sense to me.

Awhh sorry that is where you are wrong. Christian are still complaining about Rowe V. Wade several decade afterwords and mark the day of the worst legal decision in American history. I hear it just about every Sunday. They have Marches and all that. It goes on and on and on. Christians make up a huge amount of the voting population. If they choose to vote along with other Christians it becomes a huge wave.

And yet, Roe v Wade is still in effect. So, it seems that no matter what Christians want, the law doesnt always agree. Fancy that.


This is why Prop 8 came about and Arizona has a similar one. New York will likely never allow Gay Civil Unions. It is important to those who feel they are defending their church and their way of life. It will continue to be an issue and if only your side would modify their tactics slightly you would get what you are after. Iowa may be a short lived decision we shall see.

Why modify our tactics to accomidate homophobes? Your churches were never in any danger. That you are all so easily swayed by baseless fear mongering about 'teh gayz' is more telling of you then us.


I do not wish to Stymie[by the way, great word you do not hear this enough] anyone's progress or lot in life.

Then stop opposing equality.

What I am trying to say is there is middle ground. Use it to your advantage.

Lets give gays 3/5ths a vote too. Yay middle ground!


It is not just me and that is the problem. Words matter sometimes. Seek away around an impediment. Take a different route. Marriage to Christian means something sacred.

Good for Christians. Christians also think that conception marks the begining of human life. The law, unfortunitally, does not always agree with your dogma.


I am trying to show you and all that there is an express lane to where you want to get. Why must you go over the bumpy, unpaved, tree covered, swampy path to get there? Why force the issue at all? Modify your approach?

Because civil rights are something that should be forced? Because you dont cooperate with people who want others to be second class citizens?

<snip>

Just one question... why can't Christians just let other people live their lives the way they choose? Why do they insist on trying to infringe on other people's rights?

I must confess, I haven't read all +700 replies, but I still want to share my opinion on this case. ;)

Is homosexualism wrong? Well, for me it is more like an illness. Maybe not disease stricte as a medical term but hey - it's a deviation from normal, healthy state. Just for example - being gay affects in some way one's ability to procreate. Illness isn't a thing than can be good or wrong in moral sense of these words. It is definitely something uncool, but also, something that people don't really choose, therefore we have to tolerate it. Just like any other deviation which doesn't really harm anyone.

The only one really awkward thing about homosexualism is that it has become a public issue. OK, good, let's tell people that there are things we should just accept, but does it have to be so loud and overblown? You see, this situation initiates touching on sexuality, which can be IMO very demoralizing for everyone. One's private issues shouldn't be brought outside one's bedroom.

Although I am Catholic, and live in a country considered as local Texas (although with no oil :( ) I do not oppose gay marriages. I think that if two people love each other very much like true life mates, it doesn't really make difference if they are straight or gay. I believe that marriage should be founded on platonic love, which doesn't have to be connected with sexuality. It is even cooler because The Bible denounces (slightly) only homosexual commitment, not the relationship itself. And even this is up to interpretation.

Still, I don't really think that gay pairs should be able to adopt children. This would just be harmful to those kids. Why? Well, IMO a child can't grow normally if it doesn't have both parents (mom and dad, not mom and other mom or dad and other dad) For example - me. Due to my parents divorce, i was raised almost entirely by women. And... er... my childhood REALLY sucked.

As you can see, I am not intolerant person. I just wish that world was sensible place and humans, through morality, cared more about their humanity.

BTW, my first post. I just saw this thread in "Latest threads" and decided to contribute. ;)

Still, I don't really think that gay pairs should be able to adopt children. This would just be harmful to those kids. Why? Well, IMO a child can't grow normally if it doesn't have both parents (mom and dad, not mom and other mom or dad and other dad)
Too bad your opinion does not invalidate the mountians of scientific study done on he subject.

I must confess, I haven't read all +700 replies, but I still want to share my opinion on this case. ;)

Is homosexualism wrong? Well, for me it is more like an illness. Maybe not disease stricte as a medical term but hey - it's a deviation from normal, healthy state. Just for example - being gay affects in some way one's ability to procreate. Illness isn't a thing than can be good or wrong in moral sense of these words. It is definitely something uncool, but also, something that people don't really choose, therefore we have to tolerate it. Just like any other deviation which doesn't really harm anyone.

The only one really awkward thing about homosexualism is that it has become a public issue. OK, good, let's tell people that there are things we should just accept, but does it have to be so loud and overblown? You see, this situation initiates touching on sexuality, which can be IMO very demoralizing for everyone. One's private issues shouldn't be brought outside one's bedroom.

Although I am Catholic, and live in a country considered as local Texas (although with no oil :( ) I do not oppose gay marriages. I think that if two people love each other very much like true life mates, it doesn't really make difference if they are straight or gay. I believe that marriage should be founded on platonic love, which doesn't have to be connected with sexuality. It is even cooler because The Bible denounces (slightly) only homosexual commitment, not the relationship itself. And even this is up to interpretation.

Still, I don't really think that gay pairs should be able to adopt children. This would just be harmful to those kids. Why? Well, IMO a child can't grow normally if it doesn't have both parents (mom and dad, no mom and other mom or dad and other dad) For example - me. Due to my parents divorce, i was raised almost entirely by women. And... er... my childhood REALLY sucked.

As you can see, I am not intolerant person. I just wish that world was sensible place and humans, through morality, cared more about their humanity.

BTW, my first post. I just saw this thread in "Latest threads" and decided to contribute. ;)

Yet you just called homosexuals diseased and unhealthy. You are as intolerant as you could possibly be without actually posting video of you attacking a gay person. Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to make it through the day or gaze confidently into a mirror, but you're a bigot. You opened with nonsense and closed with it (homosexuals don't care about their humanity because they dare to stand up for their right not to be persecuted? Really?), and anything in the middle doesn't come close to ameliorating the absolute ignorance and crap on both ends of your post.

Well said. Me too. I don't even care if they bond together either.

I keep saying don't call it marriage because it invokes the church whether you like it or not.

Call it a civil partnership, domestic union, whatever don't call it a marriage. As you have seen marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. We have enough lawyers on this site there must be a way to make domestic unions to have all the same powers and marriage without calling it marriage. You will get a ton less push back.

Just. Plain. Wrong.

Just one question... why can't Christians just let other people live their lives the way they choose? Why do they insist on trying to infringe on other people's rights?

Tradition :p

yea its wrong. And dont give me this crap about me being a cruel person, a bigot, and evil, i dont care. No civil unions either

Just one question... why can't Christians just let other people live their lives the way they choose? Why do they insist on trying to infringe on other people's rights?

We have a policy we are suppose to try to set straight sinners.

We have a policy we are suppose to evangelize

Girl in white

Guy in black

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sign of God – and in the face of this company – to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is commended to be honorable among all men; and therefore – is not by any – to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly – but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and solemnly. Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Marriage is the union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind. It is intended for their mutual joy – and for the help and comfort given on another in prosperity and adversity. But more importantly – it is a means through which a stable and loving environment may be attained.

yea its wrong. And dont give me this crap about me being a cruel person, a bigot, and evil, i dont care. No civil unions either

Why, with such a well thought out, convincing, reasoned arguement, who could possibly fail to be convinced!

We have a policy we are suppose to try to set straight sinners.

We have a policy we are suppose to evangelize

And I have a policy to ignore you. It seems we are at an impass. Difference is, history shows my side will eventually win.

Of course homosexuality isn't wrong. :fluffle: Gay people are people, no difference, it's not a life choice, it's not a revolt against theocentric :hail: society, it's something they have in them...they don't choose, nor should they. Nothing wrong with it at all. It's wrong to think it's wrong, or to discriminate. :D

Awhh sorry that is where you are wrong. Christian are still complaining about Rowe V. Wade several decade afterwords and mark the day of the worst legal decision in American history. I hear it just about every Sunday. They have Marches and all that. It goes on and on and on. Christians make up a huge amount of the voting population. If they choose to vote along with other Christians it becomes a huge wave.
And yet you continue to fail.

But thank you for admitting that your sole motivation is to impose your religious views on others. It is so much easier to take down bigotry when the bigots admit it.

This is why Prop 8 came about and Arizona has a similar one. New York will likely never allow Gay Civil Unions. It is important to those who feel they are defending their church and their way of life. It will continue to be an issue and if only your side would modify their tactics slightly you would get what you are after. Iowa may be a short lived decision we shall see.
So you are already planning to push your bigotry further and strip more American citizens of rights. The more you do this, the stronger the opposition to you will be. The cases that are coming to decision now were pending before Prop 8, but many anticipated that swift action would be taken, spurred by outrage at the abuse embodied in Prop 8. The article on the Iowa decision points out that it came nearly a year before it was anticipated. All you have done with Prop 8 is hasten your own ultimate failure. I thank you for that. The more you oppress people, the stronger my movement gets.


I do not wish to Stymie[by the way, great word you do not hear this enough] anyone's progress or lot in life.
You lie.

Every action you take puts up obstacles to civil rights and brings harm to gay Americans. You yourself admit that your motive is to impose your religious beliefs on everyone in the country, to prevent citizens from getting rights, and to strip rights from those who have them now. That brings harm to both gay and hetero Americans.

Actions speak louder than words, TB. Saying that you don't want to stop people from being equal in this nation while at the same time taking action to stop them, only adds insult to injury.

What I am trying to say is there is middle ground. Use it to your advantage.
Is that a threat?

Obviously not a personal one, but a threat against the gay rights movement? Comply with our demands or else?

I have already stated that your supposed "middle ground" is nothing of the kind. If anyone should be required to comply with something, it is you. You should comply with US law, which states that separate is not equal.

It is not just me and that is the problem. Words matter sometimes. Seek away around an impediment. Take a different route. Marriage to Christian means something sacred.
And now you wish to paint every Christian with your bigotry.

I remind you that there are fully accredited Christian churches that willingly perform same sex marriages. I remind you that many Christian individuals have expressed strong support for gays having the right to marry. Marry, TB. I remind you that many Mormon families quit that church in protest against its support for Prop 8.

You do not speak for all Christians. Your claims otherwise are another lie, and another insult, this time against your fellow Christians.

It is typical of bigots that they try to hide in crowds, claiming that they are expressing a view that is held by the majority of whatever group they want to belong to. It's pathetic as well as false.

I am trying to show you and all that there is an express lane to where you want to get. Why must you go over the bumpy, unpaved, tree covered, swampy path to get there? Why force the issue at all? Modify your approach?

Seems to make sense to me.
Of course it makes sense to YOU. It would allow you to continue pretending to be more special than other people. Not interested. Civil marriage is defined by the state. Not by YOUR church. Find a way to cope.

Girl in white

Guy in black

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sign of God – and in the face of this company – to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is commended to be honorable among all men; and therefore – is not by any – to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly – but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and solemnly. Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Not the only form of marriage. Try agian.

But more importantly – it is a means through which a stable and loving environment may be attained.

And all evidence shows that gays can attain this as well.

We have a policy we are suppose to try to set straight sinners.

We have a policy we are suppose to evangelize
More BS. Pushing your beliefs into law via legislation is NOT evanglizing.

Evangelizing is when you convince others to accept the beliefs.

All you are doing is forcing others to live under your rules whether we believe in them or not. That is not evangelism. It is oppression, and it is wrong.

You are not a good ambassador for your faith, TB, because your arguments are some of the most transparently self-serving crap thinly glossed over a grossly prejudiced worldview I've ever read.

This is why Prop 8 came about and Arizona has a similar one. New York will likely never allow Gay Civil Unions. It is important to those who feel they are defending their church and their way of life. It will continue to be an issue and if only your side would modify their tactics slightly you would get what you are after. Iowa may be a short lived decision we shall see.

How exactly does 2 homosexuals getting married adversely affect your way of life?

And yet you continue to fail.

But thank you for admitting that your sole motivation is to impose your religious views on others. It is so much easier to take down bigotry when the bigots admit it.

Yeah bigots like the entire Catholic church. Hmm okay. That is the definition of Christians. We will respect the law but not participate.


So you are already planning to push your bigotry further and strip more American citizens of rights. The more you do this, the stronger the opposition to you will be. The cases that are coming to decision now were pending before Prop 8, but many anticipated that swift action would be taken, spurred by outrage at the abuse embodied in Prop 8. The article on the Iowa decision points out that it came nearly a year before it was anticipated. All you have done with Prop 8 is hasten your own ultimate failure. I thank you for that. The more you oppress people, the stronger my movement gets.

Who me, no. My church, likely. And the stronger the resistance gets you see how this works? You escalate, we escalate. repeat.



You lie.

Every action you take puts up obstacles to civil rights and brings harm to gay Americans. You yourself admit that your motive is to impose your religious beliefs on everyone in the country, to prevent citizens from getting rights, and to strip rights from those who have them now. That brings harm to both gay and hetero Americans.

That is the definition of Catholic. Not to strip rights or abuse anyone.


Actions speak louder than words, TB. Saying that you don't want to stop people from being equal in this nation while at the same time taking action to stop them, only adds insult to injury.

I will continue funding the Catholic church every weekend until I shift off this mortal coil.


Is that a threat?

Obviously not a personal one, but a threat against the gay rights movement? Comply with our demands or else?

A suggestion.


I have already stated that your supposed "middle ground" is nothing of the kind. If anyone should be required to comply with something, it is you. You should comply with US law, which states that separate is not equal.

Of course we will comply with the law.


And now you wish to paint every Christian with your bigotry.

Sorry I should have said Catholic.


I remind you that there are fully accredited Christian churches that willingly perform same sex marriages. I remind you that many Christian individuals have expressed strong support for gays having the right to marry. Marry, TB. I remind you that many Mormon families quit that church in protest against its support for Prop 8.

Yeah you have to ask yourself. Accredited by whom. By the United States. Well then there must be no harm in then. Oh wait the also have a fully accredited Church of Satan too. Everything must be alright then.


You do not speak for all Christians. Your claims otherwise are another lie, and another insult, this time against your fellow Christians.

I don't think it is an insult to anyone to express your feelings.


It is typical of bigots that they try to hide in crowds, claiming that they are expressing a view that is held by the majority of whatever group they want to belong to. It's pathetic as well as false.

Yeah like the Catholic church.


Of course it makes sense to YOU. It would allow you to continue pretending to be more special than other people. Not interested. Civil marriage is defined by the state. Not by YOUR church. Find a way to cope.

I usually choose alcohol for what is is worth but it could be so easy.

yea its wrong. And dont give me this crap about me being a cruel person, a bigot, and evil, i dont care. No civil unions either

Nice reasoning.

I swear trolls are getting worse and worse.

Homosexuality is both delicious and fun. I enjoy it immensely.

Homosexuality is both delicious and fun. I enjoy it immensely.

Really? Delicious is not one of the things I've heard about it.

Really? Delicious is not one of the things I've heard about it.

Thats cause youre doing it wrong, ;)

Yeah bigots like the entire Catholic church. Hmm okay. That is the definition of Christians. We will respect the law but not participate.
So stop trying to enshrine your bigoted beliefs into law.
Who me, no. My church, likely. And the stronger the resistance gets you see how this works? You escalate, we escalate. repeat.
Difference is, we have the law on our side. And we're on the winning side of history.
That is the definition of Catholic. Not to strip rights or abuse anyone.
Even a basic history education would make this statement laughably funny.
I will continue funding the Catholic church every weekend until I shift off this mortal coil.
Then you are funding bigotry.
Yeah you have to ask yourself. Accredited by whom. By the United States. Well then there must be no harm in then. Oh wait the also have a fully accredited Church of Satan too. Everything must be alright then.
It is. Religious freedom and all that jazz. Besides, in the secular world, like courts of law, who do you think is taken more seriously? Your church, or the Consititution and case law?

Really? Delicious is not one of the things I've heard about it.

Oh yes, male bodies really can be delicious. Especially covered in sweat and blood drawn from kinky sex.

I can't see how it can't be uncomfortable (for men) but wrong, right, those are subjective. I have no problem with homosexuals so long as they aren't performing their dirty acts on my lawn or in my house. Unless it's really hot lesbians, then they may use my lawn.

Thats cause youre doing it wrong, ;)
ROFL

Why don't you show me how it's done?
Oh yes, male bodies really can be delicious. Especially covered in sweat and blood drawn from kinky sex.

I dunno whether to take you seriously or not. :mad:

I can't see how it can't be uncomfortable (for men) but wrong, right, those are subjective. I have no problem with homosexuals so long as they aren't performing their dirty acts on my lawn or in my house.
Because that happens all the time, Im sure:rolleyes:

Because that happens all the time, Im sure:rolleyes:

Nowhere near as often as I'd like! The lesbians that is.

Nowhere near as often as I'd like! The lesbians that is.

:tongue:

Thats cause youre doing it wrong, ;)

*drools at your avatar*

The only time I had to actually break up a possible homosexual act is when my gay friend Justin and the guy he picked up started making out in the back seat of my Jaguar Xj6. I pulled over and gave them the 15 minute 'do you know how fast oils and fluids from the human body dry out and crack original leather' speech.

In fairness several straight friends have gotten that speech as well. So knock it off back there.

The only time I had to actually break up a possible homosexual act is when my gay friend Justin and the guy he picked up started making out in the back seat of my Jaguar Xj6. I pulled over and gave them the 15 minute 'do you know how fast oils and fluids from the human body dry out and crack original leather' speech.

In fairness several straight friends have gotten that speech as well. So knock it off back there.

Oh God yes. Friends making out in the backseat of your car is fucking annoying, regardless of sexual orientation.

From a social engineering point. Not that anyone do such a thing in the United States of America.

Suppose you wanted to decrease the population of say California what would one do?

You put up a law like Prop 8.

People gets pissed

Now contrast that with a very close State suddenly legalizes same sex marriages.


Now also suppose just for argument purposes that you wanted to shift the voting population of say Iowa. You wanted to cement your party in the population what would you do? Allowing gay marriage would shift the demographic to the left maybe way to the left. Hmmmmmm.

Of course the question becomes can people from California shift what they do to becoming an Iowan? When they shift can they bring their employment and their life and start up in Iowa?

More gyms

More coffee shops

More bed and Breakfasts

More art and knickknack shops

Iowa is about to shift a lot in coming years.

Figured I'd repost this:

This is why Prop 8 came about and Arizona has a similar one. New York will likely never allow Gay Civil Unions. It is important to those who feel they are defending their church and their way of life. It will continue to be an issue and if only your side would modify their tactics slightly you would get what you are after. Iowa may be a short lived decision we shall see.

How exactly does 2 homosexuals getting married adversely affect your way of life?

Yeah bigots like the entire Catholic church. Hmm okay. That is the definition of Christians. We will respect the law but not participate.
Really? Then why are you supporting a political movement to strip American citizens of rights and impose your religion on others via the law?

Do you say anything that is honest?

Who me, no. My church, likely. And the stronger the resistance gets you see how this works? You escalate, we escalate. repeat.
Read history. We win. History motivates us to fight, not appease.

That is the definition of Catholic. Not to strip rights or abuse anyone.
Your arrogance seems as limitless as your dishonesty.

1) You do not speak for all Catholics, either. Unless you are the Pope. If you are the Pope then I hate to tell you this, but not all your flock are following you.

Are you the Pope? If not, then your declarations of what the definition of a Catholic is are just as much nonsense as everything else you say about what other people think.

2) I have already pointed out that actions speak louder than words. When you deny that you seek to strip others of rights, even as you do strip others of rights (see California), then you are a liar. And a sad example of one.

I will continue funding the Catholic church every weekend until I shift off this mortal coil.
Who suggested you should do otherwise? What you do WITHIN your church is your own affair. I only care when you try to impose your church's rules outside of your church. Keep that stuff in the church where it belongs, and out of the US government.

A suggestion.
Noted and rejected.

Of course we will comply with the law.
So then you are going to stop insulting gays with your petty complaints about how they shouldn't be allowed to get married because you want that word all for yourself. So they should just agree to a "separate but equal" system. I mean, after all, US law has declared that "separate but equal" is not equal and is a violation of rights. And if you're going to comply with the law, then you should acknowledge that, right?

Sorry I should have said Catholic.

Yeah you have to ask yourself. Accredited by whom. By the United States. Well then there must be no harm in then. Oh wait the also have a fully accredited Church of Satan too. Everything must be alright then.
Lovely. The No True Scotsman fallacy. You insult and denigrate anyone who disagrees with you -- if they don't oppose gay marriage, they must be false or somehow lesser churches. You suggest they are only accredited in the US, as if being accredited in the US is proof of lack of credibility. You compare them to the Church of Satan, thereby insulting Satanists as well -- who aren't even in this fight! Just minding their own business, and WHAP! a drive by insult from you for no reason.

The United Church of Christ performs same sex marriages. They're the Congregationalists, fyi, and they've existed for a couple of centuries, a real homegrown US church, descended from English Puritans.

As far as I know, the Universalist Unitarians also perform same sex marriages. That church is another US native, descended from the deism that was the main faith of the founders of the US.

Several Episcopalian churches also perform same sex marriage, as do Anglican churches, expressing the lack of universal view on the matter even within churches.

Tell us all about how "fringe" the UCs, UUs and Episcopalians and Anglicans are.

Also: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/18/MN9JUV2MO.DTL

On the other side are the Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Soka Gakkai branch of Buddhism, and dissident groups of Mormons, Catholics and Muslims. Saying their faiths and a wide range of historical traditions honor same-sex unions, they argue that the current law puts the state's stamp of approval on "the religious orthodoxy of some sects concerning who may marry."
(emphasis added)

I don't think it is an insult to anyone to express your feelings.


Yeah like the Catholic church.


I usually choose alcohol for what is is worth but it could be so easy.
You just keep saying things as if repetition is an answer to the counter-argument. You are failing.

As for Gay marriage, I'm against marriage in the first place. It is an outdated concept and should be recognized for what it is, a social contract that cements property ownership. It has nothing to do with love or even procreation, people can have that without marriage. The only reason to get married is to say I won you, we own this and this will belong to our next of kin.

Bah!

The only time I had to actually break up a possible homosexual act is when my gay friend Justin and the guy he picked up started making out in the back seat of my Jaguar Xj6. I pulled over and gave them the 15 minute 'do you know how fast oils and fluids from the human body dry out and crack original leather' speech.

In fairness several straight friends have gotten that speech as well. So knock it off back there.
You need to carry cab fare for your friends.

From a social engineering point. Not that anyone do such a thing in the United States of America.

Suppose you wanted to decrease the population of say California what would one do?

You put up a law like Prop 8.

People gets pissed

Now contrast that with a very close State suddenly legalizes same sex marriages.


Now also suppose just for argument purposes that you wanted to shift the voting population of say Iowa. You wanted to cement your party in the population what would you do? Allowing gay marriage would shift the demographic to the left maybe way to the left. Hmmmmmm.

Of course the question becomes can people from California shift what they do to becoming an Iowan? When they shift can they bring their employment and their life and start up in Iowa?

More gyms

More coffee shops

More bed and Breakfasts

More art and knickknack shops

Iowa is about to shift a lot in coming years.

So is it the illuminati doing this, or is it teh gheyz?

You need to carry cab fare for your friends.

That defeats the whole purpose of being designated driver. Besides, I'm a large angry man, generally when I tell people to knock it off, they knock it off.

From a social engineering point. Not that anyone do such a thing in the United States of America.

Suppose you wanted to decrease the population of say California what would one do?

You put up a law like Prop 8.

People gets pissed

Now contrast that with a very close State suddenly legalizes same sex marriages.


Now also suppose just for argument purposes that you wanted to shift the voting population of say Iowa. You wanted to cement your party in the population what would you do? Allowing gay marriage would shift the demographic to the left maybe way to the left. Hmmmmmm.

Of course the question becomes can people from California shift what they do to becoming an Iowan? When they shift can they bring their employment and their life and start up in Iowa?

More gyms

More coffee shops

More bed and Breakfasts

More art and knickknack shops

Iowa is about to shift a lot in coming years.
When you start getting all cutsey-pie like this -- you know when you have nowhere else to go with your thoroughly discredited "arguments" -- do you think you are being charming?

You need to carry cab fare for your friends.

Nah, a bucket of water should suffice.

When you start getting all cutsey-pie like this -- you know when you have nowhere else to go with your thoroughly discredited "arguments" -- do you think you are being charming?

I like the implicet stereotyping hes doing as well.

"Now all the gays will move to Iowa and bring their gyms and arts and crafts and coffee shops and it will be fab-uu-luuuus!"

Figured I'd repost this:



How exactly does 2 homosexuals getting married adversely affect your way of life?

Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.

Tradition.
Not convincing.
What is considered marriage.
False and subjective
Catholic values.
REALLY not convincing.

So is it the illuminati doing this, or is it teh gheyz?


Yeah and we are on to you. Some of us noticed. Children of the Corn. Nice touch!

Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.

Tradition: Non one man, one woman marriages have existed for longer than the Roman Catholic church.

What is considered marriage: See above

Catholic values: And non-Catholics should care about this because?

Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.

The usual crap, basically.

Catholic values.

I wholeheartedly support the right of Catholic churches to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.

However, since the state is not a Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not own a patent on marriage, it is not really relevant *outside* the church.

When you start getting all cutsey-pie like this -- you know when you have nowhere else to go with your thoroughly discredited "arguments" -- do you think you are being charming?

Have you been to Maine lately?

Kennebunkport ought to do the trick. Wow. Walking in the "wrong" bar and looks like something out of as Queer as Folk, yuck.

The "Nation's Playground" has whole new meaning now. Wow.

I wholeheartedly support the right of Catholic churches to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.

However, since the state is not a Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not own a patent on marriage, it is not really relevant *outside* the church.

Me too, really. However what bothers me is the watering down thing I mentioned earlier. Socially it is acceptable. However that is very different from morally correct. That is the only point.

Yes it is a sin but so is fornication, so is sex outside of marriage and so on.

I wholeheartedly support the right of Catholic churches to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples.

However, since the state is not a Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church does not own a patent on marriage, it is not really relevant *outside* the church.

^^^This


I believe in a Separation of Church and State, if a denomination doesnt want to perform marriages fine, thats its prerogative...

However, in the eyes of the Law all people must be considered Equal, regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation...

and so in the eyes of the Law, and therefore Government there cannot be a separate but equal policy in place...

Have you been to Maine lately?

Kennebunkport ought to do the trick. Wow. Walking in the "wrong" bar and looks like something out of as Queer as Folk, yuck.

The "Nation's Playground" has whole new meaning now. Wow.

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion.


Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.

Tradition: Non one man, one woman marriages have existed for longer than the Roman Catholic church.

What is considered marriage: See above

Catholic values: And non-Catholics should care about this because?

Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.

I believe Cabra has a statement of mine in her signature that goes something like... "Tradition is a euphenism 'for it's broken and we ain't fixin' it'." I believe that about covers it. I find that when the term "tradition" is used is when arguments have run out and there is no other possible reason or justification for something. After all, there is no possible justification for preventing gays from marrying and adopting.

Of course, I have nothing against the Catholic Church not performing a marriage ceremony for everyone. After all, it seems one ought to be a member of that faith before they can receive a blessing. The problem is using that to stop those who don't buy into it from pursuing their own happiness, with a justification like "tradition", by actively working to prevent it in the secular public space.

Me too, really. However what bothers me is the watering down thing I mentioned earlier. Socially it is acceptable. However that is very different from morally correct. That is the only point.

Yes it is a sin but so is fornication, so is sex outside of marriage and so on.

If your morals forbid people from marrying others of their own gender for no real reason then why should anyone care?

I like the implicet stereotyping hes doing as well.

"Now all the gays will move to Iowa and bring their gyms and arts and crafts and coffee shops and it will be fab-uu-luuuus!"

Yeah but it is fun. Like they don't poke fun at straight people. More pastel colors in shops. Track suits in Iowa. Bandannas. Awesome!

I think it is funny and interesting and I do not feel threatened.

Yet you just called homosexuals diseased and unhealthy. You are as intolerant as you could possibly be without actually posting video of you attacking a gay person.
[quote]

Now you mister, are acting freakin' intolerant. Let's call you.. mmm... Healthist? Yeah, healthist - I can read it from your message - you definitely assume that the meaning of word "illness" is totally negative. So what, If one's health isn't as ideal as IS YOURS does it make him worse person than YOU ARE? * Does it generally make him a worse person?

* - Yeah, to this point it's more like an irony

And I said before that homosexualism, as isn't disease in medical or ethical meaning of this word. It is more like deviation from the natural, healthy state. And this is IMO morally neutral.

[quote]Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to make it through the day or gaze confidently into a mirror, but you're a bigot.

Yes, I have to eat unborn babies, which I have torn from the wombs of living teenage mothers, just to mask The Dreadful Sin of Intolerance forged in my soul. It really works!


You opened with nonsense and closed with it (homosexuals don't care about their humanity because they dare to stand up for their right not to be persecuted? Really?),


Now what the heck? Where did i say that? I have written that it's pretty immoralising to talk in public about sexual matters in general.

You see, the best way for homosexuals to be tolerated is to be good citizens, friends and workers. Some of my and my family friends are gay, and from what I see, this method works. Gay Pride Parades and stuff like that make it just worse. If the society has to be informed about something it is not that homosexualism is good (it is more like neutral), but that there are things other people just don't choose and therefore have to be tolerated.


and anything in the middle doesn't come close to ameliorating the absolute ignorance and crap on both ends of your post.

That kind of thinking started religious wars. Srsly.

As an aside... IS marriage patented ?

If not... shall I ;) ?

homosexualism

You mean homosexuality.

I believe Cabra has a statement of mine in her signature that goes something like... "Tradition is a euphenism 'for it's broken and we ain't fixin' it'." I believe that about covers it. I find that when the term "tradition" is used is when arguments have run out and there is no other possible reason or justification for something. After all, there is no possible justification for preventing gays from marrying and adopting.


Tradition based on scripture. I suppose a lot of it has to do with yep it has always been that way. You are correct. I


Of course, I have nothing against the Catholic Church not performing a marriage ceremony for everyone. After all, it seems one ought to be a member of that faith before they can receive a blessing. The problem is using that to stop those who don't buy into it from pursuing their own happiness, with a justification like "tradition", by actively working to prevent it in the public sphere.

It goes way back to becoming an "immoral" society thing. If you allow it to happen then in affect you are endorsing it. So they feel they have to stand up or face the Wrath of God. Although he has not chosen to do a smack down in a long time we want to continue this trend.. So we go away saying yep we did all we could do our consciences are clear. We did our part. Same goes for Rowe v. Wade.

Tradition based on scripture. I suppose a lot of it has to do with yep it has always been that way. You are correct.
Fail
Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.

Tradition: Non one man, one woman marriages have existed for longer than the Roman Catholic church.

What is considered marriage: See above

Catholic values: And non-Catholics should care about this because?

It goes way back to becoming an "immoral" society thing.
What gives you the right to force your morals upon someone else?
If you allow it to happen then in affect you are endorsing it. So they feel they have to stand up or face the Wrath of God.
:rolleyes:
Although he has not chosen to do a smack down in a long time we want to continue this trend.. So we go away saying yep we did all we could do our consciences are clear. We did our part. Same goes for Rowe v. Wade.
So, to prevent the Omni-benevolent Yahweh from raining destruction upon the earth you have to show your hatred for others?

We have a policy we are suppose to try to set straight sinners.

We have a policy we are suppose to evangelize

So even if people have politely told you "Thanks, but we're not interested" you still feel the need to curtail their lives? For no other reason that your personal policies?

Wow. That answer is worse than I expected.

Btw, I'll be married - sorry, civil unionised in September. However, both my Bf and myself are happy swingers.
I don't see you out there rallying to make what we do illegal... why's that?
Why do you focus on something that the bible is blissfully vague about instead of going at something it's quite clear and unmistakeable on?

Girl in white

Guy in black

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sign of God – and in the face of this company – to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is commended to be honorable among all men; and therefore – is not by any – to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly – but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and solemnly. Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Marriage is the union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind. It is intended for their mutual joy – and for the help and comfort given on another in prosperity and adversity. But more importantly – it is a means through which a stable and loving environment may be attained.

Ok... so all non-Christian marriages are actually null and void? As well as all civil marriages?
That's funny, because over here a mere church wedding doesn't get you legally married. You have to have the civil marriage before it's recognised.

It goes way back to becoming an "immoral" society thing. If you allow it to happen then in affect you are endorsing it. So they feel they have to stand up or face the Wrath of God. Although he has not chosen to do a smack down in a long time we want to continue this trend.. So we go away saying yep we did all we could do our consciences are clear. We did our part. Same goes for Roe v. Wade.

Immoral. Fun. It would be a stronger cause if there weren't numerous schools of thought on morality. Catholic morality is just one such school, and for Catholics, it is the true morality. For the rest, it isn't. Morality isn't truly codified anywhere; there is no universal agreement. Though Catholics may fear the wrath of god, others don't. As a deterrent it has no impact. The wrath has a mere threat with no substantial evidence of it to back it up is nothing but just empty words for those who rely on more than ancient words that carry no meaning.

It goes way back to becoming an "immoral" society thing. If you allow it to happen then in affect you are endorsing it. So they feel they have to stand up or face the Wrath of God. Although he has not chosen to do a smack down in a long time we want to continue this trend.. So we go away saying yep we did all we could do our consciences are clear. We did our part. Same goes for Rowe v. Wade.

Well, there went what little credibility you had...

If you think some invisible man is about to lay the "smackdown" on us because of Gays or a Woman's right to Choose...

then there are more problems here than just morality...

Tradition based on scripture. I suppose a lot of it has to do with yep it has always been that way. You are correct. I



It goes way back to becoming an "immoral" society thing. If you allow it to happen then in affect you are endorsing it. So they feel they have to stand up or face the Wrath of God. Although he has not chosen to do a smack down in a long time we want to continue this trend.. So we go away saying yep we did all we could do our consciences are clear. We did our part. Same goes for Rowe v. Wade.

You know what?
Have a good, hard look at the society around you.
And then have a look at some books form, say, 100 years past. And 500 years past.

If anything, society has become MORE moral than it has ever been. We now believe in treating everybody equally (at least some of us do, you migh be an exception of course), and not grant people fewer rights based on their sex, their skin colour, their social status or their orientation.
Not even the bible promotes that amount of moral behaviour, endorsing slavery and female enslavement. It doesn't cover the rights of children, it doesn't consider extending morality to the way we treat animals or the environmnet.

No, we're not perfect. But we're certainly more ethical and moral than what the bible promotes.

Btw, I'll be married - sorry, civil unionised in September. However, both my Bf and myself are happy swingers.

Stop that, before you bring the Wrath of God down on society!

Also, congrats, I didn't know you and Boy-Cabra went all legal on us.

Stop that, before you bring the Wrath of God down on society!

too late... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB1bLdN2ecg)

Stop that, before you bring the Wrath of God down on society!

Also, congrats, I didn't know you and Boy-Cabra went all legal on us.

The Wrath of God makes for good special effects, if Hollywood is to be believed.

Ah, we figured it'll make it easier legally when we decide to have lots of little Cabras... ;)

You know what?

[...stuff...]

No, we're not perfect. But we're certainly more ethical and moral than what the bible promotes.

The main message of The Bible is, that the God wants us to be good. But it was written thousands of years ago, when, society wasn't as developed as it is today.
And that is why it has to be interpreted, for example by the Church.

But still, quoting Bible isn't in discussion as this a reasonable argument. In a group of believers or theologists, who know how to interpret it and consider it as the main way to the good, it's OK. But here, we have to base mainly on our own reasons if you know what I mean.

If I'm covering well-trod ground, I apologize. After reading 3 of 56 pages, I found that I didn't have the patience.

Before going into topics, I am a middle aged guy, who has only been attending church for about 9 years. Therefore, I believe I can speak with a little knowledge on the culture.

Q. Is homosexuality wrong?
A1. From a biological perspective, it seems to be. In this respect, I mean those persons who claim to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexuality would allow for both the creation of children and the pursuit of pleasure and companionship.
A2. From a sociological perspective, it may be more wrong than right. Societies need to replenish their numbers after wars or ecological disasters, as well as natural death.
A3. From a familial perspective, it seems very wrong. The parents of exclusive homosexuals never see their genetics survive beyond their children. Yes, this may seem selfish of the elder generation as well as the generation that will not procreate.
A4. From most religious perspectives, yup, it's wrong.

As for civil unions, I see nothing wrong with a contract of cooperation between two consenting adults of the same sex. I do, however, draw a line and refuse to call such an arrangement a "marriage".

Q. Is homosexuality wrong?
A1. From a biological perspective, it seems to be. In this respect, I mean those persons who claim to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexuality would allow for both the creation of children and the pursuit of pleasure and companionship.

It is assumed that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is partly due to the fact that having a few non-reproducing adults in the family can increase the chances of children surviving, due to them having extra caretakers. Since the child of your sibling is pretty close genetically to what your own child would be, it does not have to be "wrong" from a biological perspective - it can in fact be efficient. This also covers A3.

See also the animals that live in social structures involving "alpha males" and such.

A2. From a sociological perspective, it may be more wrong than right. Societies need to replenish their numbers after wars or ecological disasters, as well as natural death.

But what if a couple wants 5 children - more than needed to replenish the supply ? Should there not be couples who take less then to maintain a balance ?

A1. From a biological perspective, it seems to be. In this respect, I mean those persons who claim to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexuality would allow for both the creation of children and the pursuit of pleasure and companionship.

This has been refuted numerous times--go back through the thread and you'll find a nice long discussion about it. Homosexuality, unlike, say, sterility, does not prevent reproduction, and appears to have social and evolutionary benefits.


A2. From a sociological perspective, it may be more wrong than right. Societies need to replenish their numbers after wars or ecological disasters, as well as natural death.

Yet, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, higher education is correlated with fewer offspring.

A3. From a familial perspective, it seems very wrong. The parents of exclusive homosexuals never see their genetics survive beyond their children. Yes, this may seem selfish of the elder generation as well as the generation that will not procreate.

If they have a single homosexual child who chooses to never procreate. Not the case very often--and again, sexual preference does not limit the ability to procreate.

A4. From most religious perspectives, yup, it's wrong.

As for civil unions, I see nothing wrong with a contract of cooperation between two consenting adults of the same sex. I do, however, draw a line and refuse to call such an arrangement a "marriage".

I refuse to call chick peas "garbanzo beans", but I don't think we need to make it illegal. Many people call them "garbanzos". It hasn't affected my enjoyment of chick peas one bit.

As for civil unions, I see nothing wrong with a contract of cooperation between two consenting adults of the same sex. I do, however, draw a line and refuse to call such an arrangement a "marriage".

You know, this really makes sense.

Marriage is a law institution which protect com mon fruits of a close relationship - spiritual an material gains and the most important - children. Since homosexuals aren't able to have their own children and shouldn't adopt them - at least IMO child should have both father and mother (I said something about that earlier if You are interested) - their union won't be a complete marriage. But if they still own and use common things, therefore it should be registered. Just not as the full marriage.

I was saying sometimes when they say that I think they mean in the sense that I described, unless of course you mean your lesbian friends managed to conceive with just each other. That would be some crazy shit happening.


And awesome.

Sometimes they probably do mean it as you say, which isn't MUCH of a better answer, anyway - but at least it's not AS obviously nonsensical.


Preaching to the choir, dude. You must have made the same mistake as Intangelon hinking that I was pushing this argument as a means to prove that homosexuals are wrong.

When the man stands up to preach, he may face the choir, but the spirit of the message will be heard by all within range of his voice. If those who NEED to hear his ministry are in the church, they will also hear.

It is wrong by Biblical standards, however the Lord Jesus will still forgive
you for it. :)

There's a quote out there, floating around, that says something about the bible having half a dozen specific condemnations relating to homosexuality... and dozens relating to heterosexuality.

What it suggests is - it's arguable if homosexuality is especially 'wrong', even by biblical standards.

The Wrath of God makes for good special effects, if Hollywood is to be believed.
This is true.

Ah, we figured it'll make it easier legally when we decide to have lots of little Cabras... ;)
Very wise. And now you have an extra anniversary to celebrate. With sex!
If I'm covering well-trod ground, I apologize. After reading 3 of 56 pages, I found that I didn't have the patience.
You are not alone. I jumped in around 46.

Before going into topics, I am a middle aged guy, who has only been attending church for about 9 years. Therefore, I believe I can speak with a little knowledge on the culture.

Q. Is homosexuality wrong?
A1. From a biological perspective, it seems to be. In this respect, I mean those persons who claim to be exclusively homosexual. Bisexuality would allow for both the creation of children and the pursuit of pleasure and companionship.
Given the current state of medical technology one need not have heterosexual sex to produce offspring at all.

And on a more basic level, there is no biological right or wrong. Arguing that homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals prefer to have sex with people they can't impregnate has nothing to do with biology. By that reasoning having sex with infertile people is wrong. Or using contraceptives.
A2. From a sociological perspective, it may be more wrong than right. Societies need to replenish their numbers after wars or ecological disasters, as well as natural death.
Homosexuals can benefit society in every way that heterosexuals can. As I've already pointed out, you can produce a child without sex these days.
A3. From a familial perspective, it seems very wrong. The parents of exclusive homosexuals never see their genetics survive beyond their children. Yes, this may seem selfish of the elder generation as well as the generation that will not procreate.
Three strikes and you're out. Preferring to have sex with people of the same gender doesn't preclude one from reproducing.
A4. From most religious perspectives, yup, it's wrong.
Meh, that's their problem. No bearing on secular societies.

As for civil unions, I see nothing wrong with a contract of cooperation between two consenting adults of the same sex. I do, however, draw a line and refuse to call such an arrangement a "marriage".

Why? If it's the same as marriage aside from the genders of the people involved then it's surely out of little more than a childish desire to 'own' marriage that one would refuse to extend the term to same sex couples.
You know, this really makes sense.

Marriage is a law institution which protect com mon fruits of a close relationship - spiritual an material gains and the most important - children. Since homosexuals aren't able to have their own children and shouldn't adopt them - at least IMO child should have both father and mother (I said something about that earlier if You are interested) - their union won't be a complete marriage. But if they still own and use common things, therefore it should be registered. Just not as the full marriage.
Marriage is about popping out offspring.......

Of course.


There's no 'of course' about it - the debate ranged WITHIN the 'church' for hundreds of years, before the 'official' version was decided.


Party to and affected by temptation like any of us but resisted. He was tempted by the best and did not succumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temptation_of_Christ


Wishful thinking, and illogical.


He was of course, also it did not mean he ahd to partake in all the sins to know what they were about.


Actually, that's almost exactly what it means. But that's irrrelevent. In order to experience the TEMPTATIONS of all the sins, but to resist them - he would have had to consider and then reject.

As a bible scholar, I'm sure you can explain to me why this means - by HIS own words - Jesus committed the sin of fornication.


It is not metaphorical and he did not sin. He was a spiritually perfect human being.


If he was without sin, he couldn't have died on the cross.


His crucifixion was for ordinary humans to absolve them of there sins. It also certainly was not a comedy.

It would have been, were he truly without sin - he'd still be hanging there, today.

I do, however, draw a line and refuse to call such an arrangement a "marriage".

Here's the sticky part though. Nobody is asking you to call it anything. What you call it is...well...rather irrelevant.

What the law calls it, what our government calls it, is what matters. If you don't want to call them marriage...don't. And I think most people will be ok with that since...well, you don't really matter.

Frankly speaking, I don't care what you call it.

So even if people have politely told you "Thanks, but we're not interested" you still feel the need to curtail their lives? For no other reason that your personal policies?

Yes we kind of have to.



Wow. That answer is worse than I expected.

Btw, I'll be married - sorry, civil unionised in September. However, both my Bf and myself are happy swingers.
I don't see you out there rallying to make what we do illegal... why's that?
Why do you focus on something that the bible is blissfully vague about instead of going at something it's quite clear and unmistakeable on?


You are not trying to claim that is moral and everyone is okay with it. What you do is your own choice. I can do nothing to stop you short locking you in a chastity belt. Something tells me you would find a way to pick the lock anyway.

The Bible in my opinion and the Catholic church was not "blissfully vague" and that is the point.

You know, this really makes sense.

Marriage is a law institution which protect com mon fruits of a close relationship - spiritual an material gains and the most important - children. Since homosexuals aren't able to have their own children and shouldn't adopt them - at least IMO child should have both father and mother (I said something about that earlier if You are interested) - their union won't be a complete marriage. But if they still own and use common things, therefore it should be registered. Just not as the full marriage.

Following this to its logical conclusion, you would outlaw divorce, and force widows with children to re-marry within, say, a year or so of their spouse's death?

I disagree strongly. I was just waiting for the bait. A soon as some starts talking about it, I think you get the Bat Signal or maybe the G-n-I signal. I knew it would take seconds or minutes and then poof you would be there. Well done by the way you never disappoint.

I'm not sure what you mean.

What 'bait'? The claim he might not have existed? I'd been posting in this thread quite some time before I saw anyone bring that up.

The point I was making - that you apparently missed - is, if you are going to argue that 'probably' this or 'probably' that, based on what we do and don't know about the scripture - well, then YOU open the door to 'probably' there being no real Jesus, at all - based on what we know about the scripture.

I was pointing out that your OWN argument is somenthing of a Pandora's Box that you might not have really wanted to open.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.

Of course it's wrong. The bible says it is. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT CRAP!
:fluffle:

We have a policy we are suppose to try to set straight sinners.

We have a policy we are suppose to evangelize

You also have a policy that you are supposed to honour the laws of the land, and keep yourselves as a 'separate' people.

Why pick just the policies that allow you to fuck with other people's freedoms?

Girl in white

Guy in black

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the sign of God – and in the face of this company – to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is commended to be honorable among all men; and therefore – is not by any – to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly – but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and solemnly. Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Marriage is the union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind. It is intended for their mutual joy – and for the help and comfort given on another in prosperity and adversity. But more importantly – it is a means through which a stable and loving environment may be attained.

Pile of wank.

Marriage is a civil arrangement that can ALSO have religious ceremonies attached.

It's about time you got used to that.

Yes we kind of have to.


You shouldn't be surprised then at people considering you impolite, meddlesome, and in short, turds.
I've met nice Christians, so I do think there's still hope, even for you...


You are not trying to claim that is moral and everyone is okay with it. What you do is your own choice. I can do nothing to stop you short locking you in a chastity belt. Something tells me you would find a way to pick the lock anyway.

The Bible in my opinion and the Catholic church was not "blissfully vague" and that is the point.

I do claim it's moral for us, and I'll challenge anyone to take issue with that.

Bible on homosexuality :
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Mind you, all this is pretty much in the same chapter as the stuff about not eating shelfish and the current pricelist if you want to sell your daughter into slavery. So either you go by that, in which case I expect you to harrass seafood restaurants as much as you do gays, or you do what most Christians do these days, disregard the section.

I seem to remember there is something in Corinthians, but there don't seem to be two even slightly translation of that.

Opposed to :

Thou shall not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14

One of the ten commandments. Yet perfectly legal in all Western countries, and no Christian outrage or moralising about it... funny, that.

Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.

Maybe in some parts of the world, maybe for the last thousand or so years. Because Catholics have only been around for a fraction of the recorded history of marriages.

Except - even then it's bullshit, isn't it? Because most of Europe actually only used 'church' weddings for those with wealth and power, for most of that time - since it ritualised the contract, so to speak.

Most people did some 'handfasting' type ceremony, or were married by common-law.

It goes way back to becoming an "immoral" society thing. If you allow it to happen then in affect you are endorsing it.

That's a non-scriptural... even ANTI-scriptural argument.

Maybe in some parts of the world, maybe for the last thousand or so years. Because Catholics have only been around for a fraction of the recorded history of marriages.

Except - even then it's bullshit, isn't it? Because most of Europe actually only used 'church' weddings for those with wealth and power, for most of that time - since it ritualised the contract, so to speak.

Most people did some 'handfasting' type ceremony, or were married by common-law.

They still do...

So, I see an argument that seems to say, "right and wrong are based on how much and what level of technology is available"?

Well, supposing that there were a homosexual gene, that means that if it were identified then it would be perfectly moral to insure that another gay person is never born?

No, that would not be ethical.

The difficulty I see with exclusive homosexuality is that, in general and allowing for certain few genius contributors, is that there doe not seem to be a vision beyond their own lifetimes.

They still do...

Oh, yes - I know this. It's kind of a minority thing, now, maybe - where as it was the dominant pattern for most people, for...well, maybe millenia.

So the catholic tradition crap is... well, crap.

I like the implicet stereotyping hes doing as well.

"Now all the gays will move to Iowa and bring their gyms and arts and crafts and coffee shops and it will be fab-uu-luuuus!"
Almost everything he says about anyone is a stereotype. I wonder sometimes if he ever gets out at all, or if his entire worldview is composed entirely of nasty gossip and backbiting bandied about around the rectory watercooler.

Alternatively, he could be making it all up, playing some kind of a 'net character or something. I have a hard time believing anyone could really be as persistently and unchangingly blind as he appears to be.

Tradition. What is considered marriage. Catholic values.
That is not an answer. The question was how do two gays getting married affect your life and beliefs. Nothing you said addresses that. Try again.

The difficulty I see with exclusive homosexuality is that, in general and allowing for certain few genius contributors, is that there doe not seem to be a vision beyond their own lifetimes.

Same goes for infertile hetero couples.. your point being?

There's no 'of course' about it - the debate ranged WITHIN the 'church' for hundreds of years, before the 'official' version was decided.

Hey Grave! Do you ever feel like we are the Coyote and Sheep dog from Bugs Bunny? Of course I know I am going to get knocked around but I can't help myself. Excuse me I have to clock in.


It has raged and continues off an on.



Wishful thinking, and illogical.

I can't even remember what we were talking about here so refresh my memory.


Actually, that's almost exactly what it means. But that's irrelevant. In order to experience the TEMPTATIONS of all the sins, but to resist them - he would have had to consider and then reject.

Oh brother. Consider? Understand is a better word. He did resist temptation.


As a bible scholar, I'm sure you can explain to me why this means - by HIS own words - Jesus committed the sin of fornication.

You are going to have to lay the first smack down on me. No I do not.



If he was without sin, he couldn't have died on the cross.

That does not follow. Innocent people go to jail all the time and are condemned for their alleged actions all the time. Even if they did not do those actions. Also why I am against capital punishment but I digress.



It would have been, were he truly without sin - he'd still be hanging there, today.

What, he beat death, just like he said he would. Also proved he was the real deal. Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days.

Have you been to Maine lately?

Kennebunkport ought to do the trick. Wow. Walking in the "wrong" bar and looks like something out of as Queer as Folk, yuck.

The "Nation's Playground" has whole new meaning now. Wow.
Making a plaything out of your prejudices does not actually serve to defuse tensions. At this point you are just flaming gays in general. Are you trying to bait someone?

Capra,
In general, most marriages are entered into with the expectation that the partner is capable of doing their part to produce children.

That's a non-scriptural... even ANTI-scriptural argument.

Sorry I know it is out of order. So the many times God struck down the Jews and their temples and scattered them to the four winds. Each of those times everyone was worshiping Idols? Everyone was committing indecent acts like marrying their brother and sisters? Well we know that is not true but a few were and brought it down on the rest. Time and time again.

Capra,
In general, most marriages are entered into with the expectation that the partner is capable of doing their part to produce children.

I would have said they were entered into with the expectation of the other person being the one you were going to spend the rest of your life with.

Me too, really. However what bothers me is the watering down thing I mentioned earlier. Socially it is acceptable. However that is very different from morally correct. That is the only point.

Yes it is a sin but so is fornication, so is sex outside of marriage and so on.
Another failure to address the post that was directed to you. TAM pointed out that everything you mention above is irrelevant outside of your church.

I repeat: Irrelevant outside of your church.

So do you care to address the question of why you should be permitted to get away with imposing your beliefs outside of your church, or don't you?

Yeah but it is fun. Like they don't poke fun at straight people. More pastel colors in shops. Track suits in Iowa. Bandannas. Awesome!

I think it is funny and interesting and I do not feel threatened.
No, actually, watching you cyber-giggle over your own bigotry is not fun. As for your claim that gays make fun of straight people, kindly show me even one example of gays talking about heteros the way you talk about gays.

Making a plaything out of your prejudices does not actually serve to defuse tensions. At this point you are just flaming gays in general. Are you trying to bait someone?

I think there are few Mods in here but I will refrain in the future. I am not trying to flame anyone. This actually happened to me it was personal experience.

Another failure to address the post that was directed to you. TAM pointed out that everything you mention above is irrelevant outside of your church.

I repeat: Irrelevant outside of your church.

So do you care to address the question of why you should be permitted to get away with imposing your beliefs outside of your church, or don't you?


No, actually, watching you cyber-giggle over your own bigotry is not fun. As for your claim that gays make fun of straight people, kindly show me even one example of gays talking about heteros the way you talk about gays.

Why should anyone be allow to imposed their beliefs on anyone else? That goes for the Constitution as well but it happens. By use of the Constitution and legal wrangling you are imposing your beliefs on people who do not share them with you. It is a two edged sword.

Rambhutan,

Well, now you're getting into the argument about what a marriage is. Up until the last 150 years, marrying for romantic love was quite rare. I should also like to have amicable marriages last for the lifetimes of the partners.

Prior to this, there was familial duty, and matched persons tried to learn to love their spouse. I really enjoy, "Do you love me?" from Fiddler on the Roof.

I would have they were entered into with the expectation of the other person being the one you were going to spend the rest of your life with.

Well clearly you're wrong because.....em.....er.....that guy said so?

Capra,
In general, most marriages are entered into with the expectation that the partner is capable of doing their part to produce children.

First of all, it's Cabra.
And secondly, have you ever heard of people getting their partners to do a fertility test before they get married? Cause I haven't. And I wouldn't EVER want to see any marriage sanctioned that was just based on the partner's ability to create offspring.

Hey Grave! Do you ever feel like we are the Coyote and Sheep dog from Bugs Bunny? Of course I know I am going to get knocked around but I can't help myself. Excuse me I have to clock in.


I actually don't mind having the debate with you, because I feel you're not completely closed to hearing both sides. I could be wrong, but it seems like it's at least worth the effort.


Oh brother. Consider? Understand is a better word. He did resist temptation.


Which means being tempted, no?


You are going to have to lay the first smack down on me. No I do not.


One of the sins of the flesh is to act on your lust for the flesh of another. In order to be tempted, but resist, he would have had to have lusted in his heart, and then not acted on it - because you're not resisting a temptation you don't FEEL.

(Example, I have never been tempted to take drugs - thus, when people talk to me about my 'strength of will' for resisting some chemical or another, I always have to point out that resisting what you don't crave is no achievement).

Which brings us to what Jesus said about lust.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

(Matthew 5:28)

So, by his own reckoning - if Jesus experienced the temptation, he as good as committed adultery.


That does not follow. Innocent people go to jail all the time and are condemned for their alleged actions all the time. Even if they did not do those actions. Also why I am against capital punishment but I digress.

What, he beat death, just like he said he would.


The wages of sin is death - if he didn't sin, no death.

Jesus either sinned, or didn't die on the cross.


Also proved he was the real deal. Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days.

Actually, since he also amended Torah law, 'miracles' and 'prophecy' mark him as a False Prophet.

So, I see an argument that seems to say, "right and wrong are based on how much and what level of technology is available"?

Well, supposing that there were a homosexual gene, that means that if it were identified then it would be perfectly moral to insure that another gay person is never born?

No, that would not be ethical.

The difficulty I see with exclusive homosexuality is that, in general and allowing for certain few genius contributors, is that there doe not seem to be a vision beyond their own lifetimes.
Pardon me, but...what the hell are you talking about?

Right or wrong based on procreation? I'm a hetero female who has chosen never to procreate (yay, zero population growth). Am I morally/ethically wrong? Why? What obligation am I not fulfilling? To whom? Why would society need offspring from ME, particularly, out of all the people who are popping out babies?

Also, the mention of medical science allowing gays to reproduce without having to fuck someone of a non-desired gender was not raised to argue moral right or wrong. It was raised to show that your argument is based on a falsehood. For your argument that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't produce babies to stand, there must be no examples of people who are exclusively gay producing babies. But they do. Often. Therefore, your predicate fact does not exist, and therefore your argument has nothing to support it, and it fails.

Finally, "a vision beyond their own lifetimes"? What. The. Fuck??

Homosexuality is not wrong, mainly because it is not a choice. If you are straight turn gay right now. You can't, can you? If anything it is technically a genetic disorder. Don't think that disorder means that it is a bad thing. It just means that it causes you to be disadvantaged. In terms of biology, you are most successful when you pass your genes to the next generation, but homosexuals do not because, well, you get the picture.

Why should anyone be allow to imposed their beliefs on anyone else? That goes for the Constitution as well but it happens. By use of the Constitution and legal wrangling you are imposing your beliefs on people who do not share them with you. It is a two edged sword.

Because people need a basis that regulates what's possible and what isn't in society.
You don't need to believe in laws. People have an inate sense of fairness, same as apes do. We KNOW when we are being treated fairly, and we know when we're not treating someone fairly.
Treating people equally is not a matter of belief. And no brainwashed religious belief should ever dictate it, because I've yet to find a single religion that actually promotes treating people fairly.

Capra,
In general, most marriages are entered into with the expectation that the partner is capable of doing their part to produce children.

If that were true, why is "sex before marriage" frowned upon by some ? Would make sense to be certain your partner is even pregnant before you tie the knot.

Sorry I know it is out of order. So the many times God struck down the Jews and their temples and scattered them to the four winds. Each of those times everyone was worshiping Idols? Everyone was committing indecent acts like marrying their brother and sisters? Well we know that is not true but a few were and brought it down on the rest. Time and time again.

It's anti scriptural because Jesus said to live among the heathen, but not to be OF the heathen. He said to hold yourselves as a separate people. He said to render unto Caesar, etc - which means to follow the temporal rules of your society, but the spiritual rules of your God.

When Christians make the law of the land, they disobey Jesus.

When Christians disobey the law of the land, they disobey Jesus.

When Christians attempt to change the laws of the land, they disobey Jesus.

Sorry I know it is out of order. So the many times God struck down the Jews and their temples and scattered them to the four winds. Each of those times everyone was worshiping Idols? Everyone was committing indecent acts like marrying their brother and sisters? Well we know that is not true but a few were and brought it down on the rest. Time and time again.
So it is your belief that just holding beliefs different from yours is a sin, and that you must force us to at least act as if we have accepted your beliefs? And if we refuse, what will you do? Burn us at the stake? And all to save yourself, rather than us, I might add.

Oh, by the way, don't know if you realize this, but if we were to follow the logic of the argument you posted, we would all have to become observant Jews to avoid that god's wrath.

So that leaves your precious Catholic church and its much vaunted values out in the irrelevant cold. Again.

Apologies, Cabra. My reading glasses must have slipped.
Again, are morality and ethics based on the quantity and quality of technology?

IMHO there is a time and a place for romantic love. Practical love has many benefits.
They don't call it "the TRAGEDY of Romeo and Juliet" for nothing. I much prefer "The Taming of the Shrew"

Apologies, Cabra. My reading glasses must have slipped.
Again, are morality and ethics based on the quantity and quality of technology?

IMHO there is a time and a place for romantic love. Practical love has many benefits.
They don't call it "the TRAGEDY of Romeo and Juliet" for nothing. I much prefer "The Taming of the Shrew"

You seem a bit random. What are you on about?

You shouldn't be surprised then at people considering you impolite, meddlesome, and in short, turds.
I've met nice Christians, so I do think there's still hope, even for you...



I do claim it's moral for us, and I'll challenge anyone to take issue with that.

Bible on homosexuality :
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Mind you, all this is pretty much in the same chapter as the stuff about not eating shelfish and the current pricelist if you want to sell your daughter into slavery. So either you go by that, in which case I expect you to harrass seafood restaurants as much as you do gays, or you do what most Christians do these days, disregard the section.

I seem to remember there is something in Corinthians, but there don't seem to be two even slightly translation of that.

Opposed to :

Thou shall not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14

One of the ten commandments. Yet perfectly legal in all Western countries, and no Christian outrage or moralising about it... funny, that.

Don't get me started: Divorce, fornication, adultery

By the way swingers have been brought to task in the past. We didn't do much better with them either.

Following this to its logical conclusion, you would outlaw divorce, and force widows with children to re-marry within, say, a year or so of their spouse's death?

No, that would be probably too much fanaticism and bureaucracy combined. Even thinking about those two put together makes me shiver.

Well, as they say, accidents happen. Probably the only sensible thing to do is to grant the widow/divorced possibility of financial safety.


[Bible quotes and stuff-o]


Big part of The Bible is just a combination of ancient Jewish moral law codes. Of course, most of them are based on natural laws, which are the base of every ethical code - both theist and atheist. Still, some of them concern specific rules of how to be a good Jew (as a member of nation, not God-believer) and how to keep national autonomy. Like "no eating pork meat", "no planting seeds of two kinds of crop on one field" "wear scull cap in a temple" etc. Christians, which is confirmed f.e. by Catholic Church, do not have to follow those, mostly traditional, rules (instead we've got our own traditions).

In my opinion Church opposes homosexual relationship, just because it has recently caused the wave of demoralizing public discussions about sexuality. OK, but then you ask "Why can't they just say that directly?". Well, probably at the beginning they didn't fully understand the phenomenon of homosexuality, and now are too proud to admit that. Well, Catholic Church is one big piece of cement institution! But that's why I like them - at least they usually are consistent.

Apologies, Cabra. My reading glasses must have slipped.

Sidestep: did you know that according to the Bible it is forbidden to let people with imperfect eyesight into the church ;) ?

Again, are morality and ethics based on the quantity and quality of technology?

To a degree - yes.

Don't get me started: Divorce, fornication, adultery

By the way swingers have been brought to task in the past. We didn't do much better with them either.

If you keep failing to put a stop to all these immoral actions then doesn't it suggest that God doesn't care? Wouldn't he help you convince these people to do the 'right thing'?

Don't get me started: Divorce, fornication, adultery

By the way swingers have been brought to task in the past. We didn't do much better with them either.

True, but I don't see them picketting swingers clubs these days. Or holding rallies.
In the past, you've also dealt with witches, and blacks, and women... I can see that you're nostalgic, but it would seem even Christianity has taken on a bit of the extended morality of the secular world. As I said, there's hope for you still.

Why should anyone be allow to imposed their beliefs on anyone else? That goes for the Constitution as well but it happens. By use of the Constitution and legal wrangling you are imposing your beliefs on people who do not share them with you. It is a two edged sword.
Ah, so when you said you would abide by the laws of the land you were lying? Again?

Also, the above admission of prior dishonesty contains a lie of its own: The US Constitution does not, would not, and cannot force you to live in violation of your own religious beliefs. It only requires you to accord the same respect to other people. If you cannot do that, then you are a bigot, and the law, which is supposed to protect everyone, not just you, is not required to make special dispensations for bigotry. Special dispensations are the province of the Catholic church, I believe, not of a secular government. So that's another thing you can keep within the church where it belongs.

You made a big noise earlier about finding a "middle ground" when you insisted that Catholics should be allowed to own the word "marriage." How about you recognize that following the law and not imposing your beliefs on others while practicing them freely for yourself IS a middle ground in a pluralistic society?

Or is it only "finding a middle ground" when the other person gives up everything so you can have your way?

Is it just me or do all n00bs sound the same nowadays?

Is it just me or do all n00bs sound the same nowadays?

I'll let you in on a secret. There's only one noob. He just posts under many names.

Why should anyone be allow to imposed their beliefs on anyone else? That goes for the Constitution as well but it happens. By use of the Constitution and legal wrangling you are imposing your beliefs on people who do not share them with you. It is a two edged sword.

So tired of this embarassing failure of an argument.

No one is imposing shit on you. If gay marriage is made legal, you will NEVER be forced to marry another person of the same sex with you. There is no imposition, except in your bigotted little mind.

As for Gay marriage, I'm against marriage in the first place. It is an outdated concept and should be recognized for what it is, a social contract that cements property ownership. It has nothing to do with love or even procreation, people can have that without marriage. The only reason to get married is to say I won you, we own this and this will belong to our next of kin.

Bah!

Yay! Someone I can agree with. Down with marriage!

No, that would be probably too much fanaticism and bureaucracy combined. Even thinking about those two put together makes me shiver.

Well, as they say, accidents happen. Probably the only sensible thing to do is to grant the widow/divorced possibility of financial safety.


So you just pick on the easier tragets, is that what you're saying? Not sure if I should applaud the honesty or get mad at the complete and utter disregard for other people's right of self-determination.


Big part of The Bible is just a combination of ancient Jewish moral law codes. Of course, most of them are based on natural laws, which are the base of every ethical code - both theist and atheist. Still, some of them concern specific rules of how to be a good Jew (as a member of nation, not God-believer) and how to keep national autonomy. Like "no eating pork meat", "no planting seeds of two kinds of crop on one field" "wear scull cap in a temple" etc. Christians, which is confirmed f.e. by Catholic Church, do not have to follow those, mostly traditional, rules (instead we've got our own traditions).

In my opinion Church opposes homosexual relationship, just because it has recently caused the wave of demoralizing public discussions about sexuality. OK, but then you ask "Why can't they just say that directly?". Well, probably at the beginning they didn't fully understand the phenomenon of homosexuality, and now are too proud to admit that. Well, Catholic Church is one big piece of cement institution! But that's why I like them - at least they usually are consistent.

They didn't understand the phenomenon of homosexuality? Have you ever MET a Catholic priest???
I've been to Catholic school, if there's one thing they know about, it's homosexuality, belief me.

So tired of this embarassing failure of an argument.

No one is imposing shit on you. If gay marriage is made legal, you will NEVER be forced to marry another person of the same sex with you. There is no imposition, except in your bigotted little mind.

But he'll have to think about how the mean gays are stealing his word!

I'll let you in on a secret. There's only one noob. He just posts under many names.

Is his name Legion, for he is many?

Muravyets,
Peace, chick, chill out, please.
If you go back to my original posting back on page 56 (?) you'll see that I'm not drawing a lot of hard and fast "rights and wrongs". I've listed instances where I stated my beliefs in situations as to varying degrees of right and wrong.
If you are a nominally heterosexual woman who has chosen to suppress her biological clock, then that is your choice. I might not understand it fully and think that this type of think is non-productive, but I'm not tying you up with ropes or legislation.
Anyway, you'll know when I'm being mean to someone.

But he'll have to think about how the mean gays are stealing his word!

I think him and TAI should found a club, to mourn how other people misuse the words they love soooo much...

But he'll have to think about how the mean gays are stealing his word!
And using it for their icky icky ...um... living arrangements consisting of two consenting adults in an exclusive sexual relationship which is expected to last an indefinite period of time, potentially until death, and building a household of joint property and assets...

Yeah, those poor oppressed Catholics. However will they cope?

Muravyets,
Peace, chick, chill out, please.
If you go back to my original posting back on page 56 (?) you'll see that I'm not drawing a lot of hard and fast "rights and wrongs". I've listed instances where I stated my beliefs in situations as to varying degrees of right and wrong.
If you are a nominally heterosexual woman who has chosen to suppress her biological clock, then that is your choice. I might not understand it fully and think that this type of think is non-productive, but I'm not tying you up with ropes or legislation.
Anyway, you'll know when I'm being mean to someone.
You know what would chill me out considerably? You taking a look at the forum control buttons and figuring out how to use the one labeled "quote."

And I did read your posts starting from page 56, and I stand by my comments.

Also, you need my permission to address me as "chick."

EDIT: Also, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the emminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher Ayn "Steinem" Rand and keep that "biologial clock" bullshit to yourself. Just some friendly hints to a poster I don't know and, thus, have no reason to like.

Is his name Legion, for he is many?

His name is David.

I actually don't mind having the debate with you, because I feel you're not completely closed to hearing both sides. I could be wrong, but it seems like it's at least worth the effort.


That is as close to an endorsement as I am going to get. Thanks.


Which means being tempted, no?

Tempted yes, succumb no




One of the sins of the flesh is to act on your lust for the flesh of another. In order to be tempted, but resist, he would have had to have lusted in his heart, and then not acted on it - because you're not resisting a temptation you don't FEEL.

Without being inside his head I can not say. One could counter Sin is more like an Offer and a virtue a Rejection. You could have all these riches or you could have what you got? You could order this rock to turn into bread or you could go hungry?


(Example, I have never been tempted to take drugs - thus, when people talk to me about my 'strength of will' for resisting some chemical or another, I always have to point out that resisting what you don't crave is no achievement).

I would also say you were never truly temped in that regard. Only because what was offered you did not Desire

As was the case with Jesus. He didn't need Earthly kingdoms, riches, women. He had all he need with him.


Which brings us to what Jesus said about lust.



(Matthew 5:28)

So, by his own reckoning - if Jesus experienced the temptation, he as good as committed adultery.

Because he did not desire a relationship. It would not be a true temptation in that sense because he never wanted one.


The wages of sin is death - if he didn't sin, no death.

Nice try. Spiritual death. Physical death still occurs. Damn, I think you have the Devil's play book.



Jesus either sinned, or didn't die on the cross.

He did not sin but did die a physical death on the cross.



Actually, since he also amended Torah law, 'miracles' and 'prophecy' mark him as a False Prophet.

Son of God apparently carries special privileges. You know I never consider this until about a month or two back when we had our first discussion.

So it is your belief that just holding beliefs different from yours is a sin, and that you must force us to at least act as if we have accepted your beliefs? And if we refuse, what will you do? Burn us at the stake? And all to save yourself, rather than us, I might add.

Oh, by the way, don't know if you realize this, but if we were to follow the logic of the argument you posted, we would all have to become observant Jews to avoid that god's wrath.

So that leaves your precious Catholic church and its much vaunted values out in the irrelevant cold. Again.

Are you kidding we are working on the Jews too. Jews for Jesus and all that. Besides we follow most of what they do. They go to church on Saturday we go on Sunday. Star of David or a cross. No pork vs. no dietary restrictions. Same 10 commandments, same books of the Bible for the most part although ours is bigger. ;)

We can play baseball together. They don't like marrying us but that is okay. We have no problem marrying anyone unless they are 2 men or women.

Okay, the "chick" thing was a joke in bad taste. Apologies.

Still, I'm trying to work this topic on a wide view, encompasing different times and cultures.

I'm really finding a number of participants in this forum to be taking it so personal and visceral.

Are you kidding we are working on the Jews too. Jews for Jesus and all that. Besides we follow most of what they do. They go to church on Saturday we go on Sunday. Star of David or a cross. No pork vs. no dietary restrictions. Same 10 commandments, same books of the Bible for the most part although ours is bigger. ;)

We can play baseball together. They don't like marrying us but that is okay. We have no problem marrying anyone unless they are 2 men or women.
Ye gods, you are not witty and not amusing. Not even a little. GnI might still hope that you are not just completely full of it, but I am ready to write you off as a loss.

Okay, the "chick" thing was a joke in bad taste. Apologies.

Still, I'm trying to work this topic on a wide view, encompasing different times and cultures.

I'm really finding a number of participants in this forum to be taking it so personal and visceral.
One thing that would help you would be not basing your arguments on assertions of fact that are obviously wrong.

EDIT: Also, still no use of the quote button. Tick-tock.

No, actually, watching you cyber-giggle over your own bigotry is not fun. As for your claim that gays make fun of straight people, kindly show me even one example of gays talking about heteros the way you talk about gays.

To be fair, there's Fass.

To be fair, there's Fass.

True, but Fass actually manages to be witty... and I don't think he ever endorsed giving heteros less rights than homosexuals.
He gets a bit uppity about bisexuals, though.

True, but Fass actually manages to be witty... and I don't think he ever endorsed giving heteros less rights than homosexuals.
He gets a bit uppity about bisexuals, though.

True

It's sort of like why lions don't learn to fish, they really don't need it. Tic-Toc.

Now, as to my assertions being in error, perhaps (and I confess that technology does make a muddle of sorting out morality for me) they are for the curent technological state of first and possibly second world countries. They are actually quite true for historical and third world countries. The question becomes, what is the most beneficial norm to aim for in a society.

I would also say you were never truly temped in that regard. Only because what was offered you did not Desire

As was the case with Jesus. He didn't need Earthly kingdoms, riches, women. He had all he need with him.

Because he did not desire a relationship. It would not be a true temptation in that sense because he never wanted one.


Are you actually thinking about the implication?

If he never really was tempted, he never really experienced temptation, so he was never really human.


Nice try. Spiritual death. Physical death still occurs.


Doesn't add up - according to Genesis, PHYSICAL death was introduced as the punishment for sin. If Jesus was without sin, Adam's curse wouldn't hold, and he'd be immune to physical death.

Nice try.


Damn, I think you have the Devil's play book.


I do. Several versions of it. My favourite is the KJV.


He did not sin but did die a physical death on the cross.


He either did not sin OR he died a physical death.

(And, scripturally, we know which one - since his post-crucifixion body bears MORTAL wounds but doesn't die - thus he MUST have died a physical death, which means he MUST have sinned.


Son of God apparently carries special privileges. You know I never consider this until about a month or two back when we had our first discussion.

Adam was the Son of God, too. Didn't save him.

The question becomes, what is the most beneficial norm to aim for in a society.

That's where you're wrong. Human rights have nothing to do with what's best for society. They are about the rights of individuals. And marriage is one of them.

To be fair, there's Fass.
One gay being a general-use bitch =/= gays making fun of straight people, as TB alleged.

It's sort of like why lions don't learn to fish, they really don't need it. Tic-Toc.

Now, as to my assertions being in error, perhaps (and I confess that technology does make a muddle of sorting out morality for me) they are for the curent technological state of first and possibly second world countries. They are actually quite true for historical and third world countries. The question becomes, what is the most beneficial norm to aim for in a society.
And....time's up.

Since you cannot be bothered to address your comments to anyone in particular in a thread which is obviously very busy and has many lines of conversation going at once, I will assume you are not talking to me or anyone else, but are just randomly inserting comments apropos nothing. And I won't bother taking up my time to read them.

That's where you're wrong. Human rights have nothing to do with what's best for society. They are about the rights of individuals. And marriage is one of them.
In addition to which, someone else pointed out that there is a practical benefit to society in having non-breeding members, so the claim that not reproducing is, in and of itself, bad for society is clearly false. In and itself, it can be quite beneficial, not harmful.

So he fails on two points: (1) Rights benefit the individual. They do not obligate the individual to do anything for society. And (2) not reproducing does not go against any "beneficial norm" for society.

So you just pick on the easier targets, is that what you're saying? Not sure if I should applaud the honesty or get mad at the complete and utter disregard for other people's right of self-determination.


Now I just don't understand. What disregard? What self-determination?
I said what is the legal/financial role of marriage in society. Then you asked about what should be done about divorced/widowed. I answered you with probably just one reasonable solution that could be introduced and which could reasonably work. I mean, doing nothing would also be an option, but I assumed that it just wouldn't count as an answer.


They didn't understand the phenomenon of homosexuality? Have you ever MET a Catholic priest???
I've been to Catholic school, if there's one thing they know about, it's homosexuality, belief me.

Ah, that thing... One of my relatives is a catholic priest. I haven't noticed anything 'strange', except that he doesn't have a girlfriend. That's gay. :D

Well, gay, or not gay, I rather thought about the highest church authorities rulling this institution, not priests themselves.

Originally posted from [b]Cabra West[/b}
That's where you're wrong. Human rights have nothing to do with what's best for society. They are about the rights of individuals. And marriage is one of them.

Excellent! Where do the rights of the society end/begin and where do the rights of the individual end/begin? Do individual people have a right to define what words mean what things, or is this a function of society?

Really, the biggest mess in the whole controversy on different sex and same sex marriage is that no one is coming up with a dictionary type definition of what marriage is supposed to be and what it's purpose is.

Now I just don't understand. What disregard? What self-determination?
I said what is the legal/financial role of marriage in society. Then you asked about what should be done about divorced/widowed. I answered you with probably just one reasonable solution that could be introduced and which could reasonably work. I mean, doing nothing would also be an option, but I assumed that it just wouldn't count as an answer.



Ah, that thing... One of my relatives is a catholic priest. I haven't noticed anything 'strange', except that he doesn't have a girlfriend. That's gay. :D

Well, gay, or not gay, I rather thought about the highest church authorities rulling this institution, not priests themselves.
If a Catholic priest, bishop, etc, is truly celibate, the way they're supposed to be, how can you tell whether they are hetero or gay? I mean, if they never fuck anyone, how can you know who they would fuck if they could fuck anyone?

And if you can't know whether any given Catholic clergyman is gay or not, then how can you know that they don't understand the phenomenon of homosexuality?

Perhaps you could say they don't understand the phenomenon of a sexual lifestyle of any persuasion, but if they are celibate gays, then surely they would understand at least something about the sexuality.

Now I just don't understand. What disregard? What self-determination?
I said what is the legal/financial role of marriage in society. Then you asked about what should be done about divorced/widowed. I answered you with probably just one reasonable solution that could be introduced and which could reasonably work. I mean, doing nothing would also be an option, but I assumed that it just wouldn't count as an answer.


Ok, I'll spell it out:

You claimed that you wouldn't want gays start families, because it's invariably bad for children not to grow up with a mother and a father.
Now, all the plentyful evidence to the contrary to the side, I asked that if that was your belief, would you force widowed men and women to re-marry, so as to not permanently harm the children who would of course suffer massively from the lack of a mother or father.
To which you replied that this would be too much buerocratic hassle.
So, essentially, either you couldn't care less about the kids, and are just using this as an excuse to deny gays their full rights, or you do care about those kids, but since it's too complicated to force people to re-marry you just go after the easy target and oppose gay marriage.

Either way, you are denying people the right to decide for themselves which consenting individual they want to marry.


Ah, that thing... One of my relatives is a catholic priest. I haven't noticed anything 'strange', except that he doesn't have a girlfriend. That's gay. :D

Well, gay, or not gay, I rather thought about the highest church authorities rulling this institution, not priests themselves.

He doesn't have a girlfriend? That's rare among Catholic priests, actually.

its adam and eve, not adam and steve.

/end thread

Ah, so when you said you would abide by the laws of the land you were lying? Again?

Also, the above admission of prior dishonesty contains a lie of its own: The US Constitution does not, would not, and cannot force you to live in violation of your own religious beliefs. It only requires you to accord the same respect to other people. If you cannot do that, then you are a bigot, and the law, which is supposed to protect everyone, not just you, is not required to make special dispensations for bigotry. Special dispensations are the province of the Catholic church, I believe, not of a secular government. So that's another thing you can keep within the church where it belongs.

You made a big noise earlier about finding a "middle ground" when you insisted that Catholics should be allowed to own the word "marriage." How about you recognize that following the law and not imposing your beliefs on others while practicing them freely for yourself IS a middle ground in a pluralistic society?

Or is it only "finding a middle ground" when the other person gives up everything so you can have your way?

People always try to influence the law one way other. That is what we do. If you don't like a law you work within the system to change that law. It is why we have politicians and lobbyists. It is also why we have lawyers and judges to determine what is acceptable in society. I never advocated breaking the law.

Muravyets wrote... I mean, if they never fuck anyone, how can you know who they would fuck if they could fuck anyone?

I think you missed the jest :)

Excellent! Where do the rights of the society end/begin and where do the rights of the individual end/begin? Do individual people have a right to define what words mean what things, or is this a function of society?

Really, the biggest mess in the whole controversy on different sex and same sex marriage is that no one is coming up with a dictionary type definition of what marriage is supposed to be and what it's purpose is.
Victory! Success! You found the button! Okay then.

The purpose of marriage has been clearly established by the history of marriage. It is a contract by which people join property to form a household and designate who the authorized members of that household/controllers of that property are -- and who are not so authorized.

There are and have been many, many different forms of marriage thoughout the world, but they all share in common the merging of assets and establishment of a household. The arrangement may form an equal partnership or an unequal one, or it may be an ownership arrangement. It may be between two people, or several, or many. It may be between people of opposite sex or same sex. It may be secular or religious or both. It may be controlled by a state or merely recognized by social tradition. EDIT: It can also entail mutual consent or not require mutual consent, all depending on where and when we are talking about. /EDIT But it is always about joining and/or exchanging property and/or the potential to acquire/amass assets or property. And it always delineates who is a member of the household and who is not for purposes of securing control over said assets/property.

That is what marriage is. It is what it has always been. And when you look at the laws governing marriage in various countries, you will see that.

its adam and eve, not adam and steve.

/end thread

And we Cloned her from his Ribcage!!

its adam and eve, not adam and steve.

/end thread

It's Bert and Ernie, not Bert and Erin.

/end dumbness

Excellent! Where do the rights of the society end/begin and where do the rights of the individual end/begin? Do individual people have a right to define what words mean what things, or is this a function of society?

Really, the biggest mess in the whole controversy on different sex and same sex marriage is that no one is coming up with a dictionary type definition of what marriage is supposed to be and what it's purpose is.

The rights of the individuals end where the rights of another individual begin.
It's pretty simple.
Society's rights are what the society in question decides them to be. Mostly they are of organisational nature.

Marriage is a social institution that grants people exemptions and additional rights (inheritance, medical, etc.). It's based on the knowledge that people need to form close-knit relationship with others, also known as "family". Mind you, that term doesn't need to imply offspring, it can be a simple partnership.

We can play baseball together. They don't like marrying us but that is okay. We have no problem marrying anyone unless they are 2 men or women.

As you've often shown in the past, you don't know much about even your own religion.

There's a quite a range of things that prevent a Catholic marriage, well beyond just the problem of "2 men or women".

It's Bert and Ernie, not Bert and Erin.

/end dumbness

*roflmao

People always try to influence the law one way other. That is what we do. If you don't like a law you work within the system to change that law. It is why we have politicians and lobbyists. It is also why we have lawyers and judges to determine what is acceptable in society. I never advocated breaking the law.
Another weak dodge that gets brought up every time this debate comes up.

1) You contradict yourself yet again. You stated specifically that Christians should not participate in the laws of the land. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim your spiritual purity of keeping yourself separate from the secular world of government and at the same time claim that you are abiding by the law in your efforts to change the law to match your theology. Either you are lying when you say you abide by the law, or you are lying when you say you keep separate from the such secular matters.

2) By seeking to establish a "separate but equal" system you would be violating the law as decided by the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. So are you lying when you say you want to change the law, or are you lying when you say you want to abide by the law?

People always try to influence the law one way other. That is what we do. If you don't like a law you work within the system to change that law. It is why we have politicians and lobbyists. It is also why we have lawyers and judges to determine what is acceptable in society. I never advocated breaking the law.

You do know people can go back and see where you've totally contradicted yourself right?

And that Muravyets has already shown it again for anybody who cares to look?

its adam and eve, not adam and steve.

Screw Adam and fuck Eve. In the ass. Both. With a CACTUS.

It's Bert and Ernie, not Bert and Erin.

/end dumbness

I can't believe someone actually posted that idiocy.

no.

Murayets wrote:The purpose of marriage has been clearly established by the history of marriage. It is a contract by which people join property to form a household and designate who the authorized members of that household/controllers of that property are -- and who are not so authorized.


Very good, but you've left out something... Paternity. This may not seem so necessary in the 21st century first world countries, but, historically, the (not perfect) exclusivity of marriage was also to ensure responsibility for the raising of children in the family unit.

no.

Simple, direct, quick, to the point.

I approve.

Are you actually thinking about the implication?

If he never really was tempted, he never really experienced temptation, so he was never really human.

He was truly human. I don't think that temptation has anything to do with being human. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are more than the sum of our direct experiences. One is able to learn about and understand something without being party to it.


Doesn't add up - according to Genesis, PHYSICAL death was introduced as the punishment for sin. If Jesus was without sin, Adam's curse wouldn't hold, and he'd be immune to physical death.

Nice try.


Yeah the idea of stopping breathing. Yeah that is stretch though. So your idea being without sin he could not physically die. Hmmmm that one requires thought.



I do. Several versions of it. My favourite is the KJV.

Very funny. I laughed. Yes I guess you have to learn backwards and forwards to learn how to get around it. Well said.


He either did not sin OR he died a physical death.

Which likely why he rose from the Dead? Okay that is a stretch to but it is all I got for the moment. He did not sin. Maybe he just looked as if he were dead and we therefor brought him down from the cross.


(And, scripturally, we know which one - since his post-crucifixion body bears MORTAL wounds but doesn't die - thus he MUST have died a physical death, which means he MUST have sinned.

Which make him hanging out somewhere invisible? Yes Thomas and all that. Of course you never really get the sense if he looked alive from the description.



Adam was the Son of God, too. Didn't save him.

Good point. Don't eat the apple. He gave it up for his wife.

Yeah, it is. I'm not going to get into detail on a public forum because I can still play nice even though I hate them.

Murayets wrote:

Very good, but you've left out something... Paternity. This may not seem so necessary in the 21st century first world countries, but, historically, the (not perfect) exclusivity of marriage was also to ensure responsibility for the raising of children in the family unit.

So was the system of having godparents for children... when both parents died, it was up to the godparents to raise the kids.

But as with so many things, this too has simply outlived its usefulness, and if children today are actually baptised, nobody expects the godparents to possibly take over raising them.

Roles and institutions change.

Yeah, it is.

Wrong.

its adam and eve, not adam and steve.

/end thread

So cute. And yet not.
And so not a thread ender.

It's Bert and Ernie, not Bert and Erin.

/end dumbness

Why you yellin again Bert? :p

Another weak dodge that gets brought up every time this debate comes up.

1) You contradict yourself yet again. You stated specifically that Christians should not participate in the laws of the land. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim your spiritual purity of keeping yourself separate from the secular world of government and at the same time claim that you are abiding by the law in your efforts to change the law to match your theology. Either you are lying when you say you abide by the law, or you are lying when you say you keep separate from the such secular matters.

2) By seeking to establish a "separate but equal" system you would be violating the law as decided by the US Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. So are you lying when you say you want to change the law, or are you lying when you say you want to abide by the law?

That was Grave N Idle. I don't agree by the way. Christians should and do both as a citizen and as a Christian. I do not keep separate from such secular matter nor should anyone. Everyone has a right to participate in the making of laws that is why we live here. Democracy at work. You are right when you say I do not separate church and state. That is an American invention.

Wrong.
Well that's my opinion.

He was truly human. I don't think that temptation has anything to do with being human. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are more than the sum of our direct experiences. One is able to learn about and understand something without being party to it.


Walking in the flesh versus walking in the spirit. Being human is walking in the flesh, which is carnal (by definition, actually). If Jesus didn't walk in the flesh AS WELL AS the spirit, then he wasn't human.

To err is human, remember.


Very funny. I laughed. Yes I guess you have to learn backwards and forwards to learn how to get around it. Well said.


That wasn't actually the point I was making.

What I was referring to is that the only assurance you have that the Bible is the word of GOD rather than of SATAN, is that the bible itself says so... as it would even if Satan wrote it, no?


He did not sin.

You keep saying that, and I keep showing evidences that suggest the contrary. At this point, it's resembling faith in the face of reason.

As you've often shown in the past, you don't know much about even your own religion.

There's a quite a range of things that prevent a Catholic marriage, well beyond just the problem of "2 men or women".

The woman should be of age the man should be of age. They should both be Christian. That is pretty much it. Why what have you got? Bring it, no holding back on us.

Cabra West wroteSo was the system of having godparents for children... when both parents died, it was up to the godparents to raise the kids.

But as with so many things, this too has simply outlived its usefulness, and if children today are actually baptised, nobody expects the godparents to possibly take over raising them.

Roles and institutions change.

Yeah, most of today's Godparents really are slackers.

Yes, things do change. I recommend Ecclesiastes, chapter 3 vs. 1 through 8, or dig out that old cover recording by The Byrds, "Turn, turn, turn".

But saying that things change does not automatically justify the attempt to change. Things are going to be a long and figuratively bloody struggle over this matter.

Well that's my opinion.

Yeah, well, it's a wrong opinion.

Yes, things do change. I recommend Ecclesiastes, chapter 3 vs. 1 through 8, or dig out that old cover recording by The Byrds, "Turn, turn, turn".

But saying that things change does not automatically justify the attempt to change. Things are going to be a long and figuratively bloody struggle over this matter.

If there is no other reason to continue doing things one way other than "that's how we always did it", it's high time to change.

Truly Blessed wroteThe woman should be of age the man should be of age. They should both be Christian. That is pretty much it. Why what have you got? Bring it, no holding back on usWell, there's "consanguity", you know, the cousins thing. Various degrees of that and all

Cabra West wrote:If there is no other reason to continue doing things one way other than "that's how we always did it", it's high time to change.

That's about as valid as "We should make changes because we can".

That's about as valid as "We should make changes because we can".

If we're faced with something that a large part of the population is unhappy about, and that at the end of the day constitutes nothing else but discrimination based on tradition, I don't see why we shouldn't change it. Do you?

That was Grave N Idle.

It's an easy mistake to make, confusing me with God.

Second Corinthians 6:14-7 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you..."

Ezra 10:11 "Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives."

The 'separate people' idea is God's, not mine.

Murayets wrote:

Very good, but you've left out something... Paternity. This may not seem so necessary in the 21st century first world countries, but, historically, the (not perfect) exclusivity of marriage was also to ensure responsibility for the raising of children in the family unit.
The reason I left it out is because it is not the universal measure of marriage that property/householding is.

In fact, many, if not most cultures through history traced lineage and inheritance MATRILINEALLY. That means through the mother's line, not the father's. Why? Because even with marriage, paternity is not guaranteed. And in many cultures it is not required to be. Children are seen to belong to the mother. Sometimes they belong also to the mother's extended family, not the father's. And even in modern western culture, in which men place a high value on paternity, inheritance is though BOTH lines, not just the paternal, and a man will very likely raise his wife's children from a prior relationship. Many men will legally adopt such children of their wife's, and even bequeath property to them as if they were the man's biological issue.

So you are wrong again.

As a psychologist, would you know if people's sexual preferences changes over time? Or if it is something that will remain throughout their lifes?
I'm not even talking about sexual orientation, just prefernces, like boobs over bum, or oral over vaginal/anal, or even fetishes?
I'm wondering that because I can't help thinking that if those preferences are stable rather than changing, surely they're can't altogether to be traced back to upbringing? And wouldn't that be similar to orientation?

*not been bothered to check the 10 pages that have come up since I last posted*

In honesty I don't precisely know. Sexual orientation is very clearly stable over time whilst at the other end of the scale some aspects of fantasies and desires can change and evolve. At a guess I'd say that broad sexual preferences are probably relativley stable but that they can change based on sexual experience. Criteria for attraction can change based on hormonal influences, however I would suspect broad criteria of attractiveness would not (ie depending on the time of the month a women may find George Clooney more attractive than Russel Crowe or vice versa - but is unlikley to find either appealing if they didn't alreayd see them that way).

Cabra West wrote:If we're faced with something that a large part of the population is unhappy about, and that at the end of the day constitutes nothing else but discrimination based on tradition, I don't see why we shouldn't change it. Do you?
Well, the current political majority, seems to think that the "traditional marriage" is the proper institution. Now, we can argue about the righteousness of both arguments until the cows come home. I believe that all current states in the U.S.A. that have recognized same sex marriage have all had that definition of marriage put forth by the courts system, there may actually have been one case where elected representives have done this, I'm not certain. But there are currently no states with same sex marriage as the result of a direct vote of the people.

That was Grave N Idle. I don't agree by the way. Christians should and do both as a citizen and as a Christian. I do not keep separate from such secular matter nor should anyone. Everyone has a right to participate in the making of laws that is why we live here. Democracy at work. You are right when you say I do not separate church and state. That is an American invention.
No, it was you. And you continue to contradict yourself. In fact, it seems that for the past, oh, 10 pages or so, you have not posted anything that did not contradict something you had posted earlier.

Have you just lost track of your own argument? Maybe you should take a break to re-read it.

Cabra West wrote:
Well, the current political majority, seems to think that the "traditional marriage" is the proper institution. Now, we can argue about the righteousness of both arguments until the cows come home. I believe that all current states in the U.S.A. that have recognized same sex marriage have all had that definition of marriage put forth by the courts system, there may actually have been one case where elected representives have done this, I'm not certain. But there are currently no states with same sex marriage as the result of a direct vote of the people.
And now you fall back on the tired old fallacy of majority rule? In the US, which is where I am, our system of laws is designed to protect the rights of the minority against abuse by the majority. Therefore, even though a majority of Americans (who at the time were white) believed that racial segregation was the proper institution, the law decided that they were wrong, because segregation violated the 14th Amendment provisions of equal protection of the law. And segregation was ended, even though it required force to make it happen. Rights are not subject to the whims of majority opinion.

If indeed, majority opinion is opposed to gay marriage, that does not matter if the denial of marriage is causing harm to gay citizens. Since marriage carries with it over 1000 legal privileges, protections and authorities affecting property, finance, child custody, health care decisions, inheritance, taxation, confidentiality protections, etc, that cannot be gotten by any other means, denial of marriage to gays does harm them. There is no overriding soceital interest in denying those things to gays. Therefore there is no justification for the government to harm gays by denying them legal marriage. And majority opinion be damned.

Muravyets wrote:The reason I left it out is because it is not the universal measure of marriage that property/householding is.
Not all together true. Notice the importance of lineage in the royal families of Europe.

Yes, both ancient Jewish and Celtic (and perhaps more) cultures traced descent through motherhood. And, divinity aside, I've also found it strange that a culture that traces lineage maternaly should trace the importance of the House of David through paternity.

Muravyets wrote:
Not all together true. Notice the importance of lineage in the royal families of Europe.

Yes, both ancient Jewish and Celtic (and perhaps more) cultures traced descent through motherhood. And, divinity aside, I've also found it strange that a culture that traces lineage maternaly should trace the importance of the House of David through paternity.
Are you basing your entire argument on the Bible, or only this one part of it?

Cabra West wrote:If we're faced with something that a large part of the population is unhappy about, and that at the end of the day constitutes nothing else but discrimination based on tradition, I don't see why we shouldn't change it. Do you?

Muravyets wrote:And now you fall back on the tired old fallacy of majority rule? In the US, which is where I am, our system of laws is designed to protect the rights of the minority against abuse by the majority. Therefore, even though a majority of Americans (who at the time were white) believed that racial segregation was the proper institution, the law decided that they were wrong, because segregation violated the 14th Amendment provisions of equal protection of the law. And segregation was ended, even though it required force to make it happen. Rights are not subject to the whims of majority opinion.

No, the majority isn't always right. But it isn't always wrong, either. Convincing the public of the righteousness of your cause and having it publicly approved by a voting majority would seem to me preferable to a civil war.

i have to say that i'm indifferent about it

Muravyets wrote:Are you basing your entire argument on the Bible, or only this one part of it?

Heavens, I am not basing my entire argument on the Bible. I have tried to keep religion out of my portion of the debate. Only making some references to the Bible and royal lineages regarding the use of paternity as a factor in traditional marriage.

no.

i have to say that i'm indifferent about it
You two are among my favourite noobs.
Muravyets wrote:
You don't have to add that in. Click the quote button and it'll do it automatically.

Heavens, I am not basing my entire argument on the Bible. I have tried to keep religion out of my portion of the debate. Only making some references to the Bible and royal lineages regarding the use of paternity as a factor in traditional marriage.

For all your talk about what a traditional marriage is and how marriages with one man and one woman for the purpose of producing offspring are traditional, you haven't done much in the way of explaining why we should keep marriage this way, thus discriminating against homosexuals.

Ok, I'll spell it out:
You claimed that you wouldn't want gays start families, because it's invariably bad for children not to grow up with a mother and a father.
Now, all the plentyful evidence to the contrary to the side, I asked that if that was your belief, would you force widowed men and women to re-marry, so as to not permanently harm the children who would of course suffer massively from the lack of a mother or father.


Yeah, Now that makes sense. Sorry, maybe I'm too slow for discussions on such big forums.


To which you replied that this would be too much buerocratic hassle.
So, essentially, either you couldn't care less about the kids, and are just using this as an excuse to deny gays their full rights, or you do care about those kids, but since it's too complicated to force people to re-marry you just go after the easy target and oppose gay marriage.


First thing, I don't oppose gay marriages. I just wouldn't let them rise children, just like I wouldn't allow some straight couple make babies if i knew (100% sure) that they are going to divorce just after their child is born.
It's more about preventing than enforcing, as you can see.

Making divorces illegal could do little good, but also would turn marriage into a trap with no exit, which could be in many cases pretty inhumane. The better solution would be making divorces much more difficult, but that could raise some problems too.
Forcing people to get married? That would be just artificial and wouldn't really do the job.

But you already know that those solutions aren't good and as you said, would seriously limit people's freedom to choose their life partners. Still, we should prevent and help, but only when it is possible. Otherwise it's just void effort, fanaticism with bureaucracy, as I said. Let's be reasonable.


Either way, you are denying people the right to decide for themselves which consenting individual they want to marry.


I do? As I said I don't oppose same-sex marriages.


He doesn't have a girlfriend? That's rare among Catholic priests, actually.

Whatever, really.

Cabra West wrote:

Muravyets wrote:

No, the majority isn't always right. But it isn't always wrong, either. Convincing the public of the righteousness of your cause and having it publicly approved by a voting majority would seem to me preferable to a civil war.
And now you think that if we don't back down on gay marriage there will be civil war? You must think that, or else why would you have mentioned it in this context?

Do you realize that your argument is getting sillier by the hour? That is a sign that it is not holding together well.

Muravyets wrote:

Heavens, I am not basing my entire argument on the Bible. I have tried to keep religion out of my portion of the debate. Only making some references to the Bible and royal lineages regarding the use of paternity as a factor in traditional marriage.
So, the best you could do is fall back on a minority cultural view to support your claims about tradition, without any reference to the whole rest of the world?

And the fact that the one example of tradition you cited just happens to be the sole support of the current anti-gay marriage faction in the US is just pure coincidence, no doubt. Uh-huh, yeah. It's not at all the case that there is no substance to any arguments against gay marriage other than "because some religious people don't like it." Nah, who would ever think that?

Ifreean wrote:For all your talk about what a traditional marriage is and how marriages with one man and one woman for the purpose of producing offspring are traditional, you haven't done much in the way of explaining why we should keep marriage this way, thus discriminating against homosexuals.
Well, I need an intermission to stretch my legs and get some grub. Maybe get some fresh oxygen to the brain.

Final words from me today on the matter:
I sit next to a gay man and his partner at the church I attend. They're nice guys.
I have a lot of doubt as to what is righteous and what isn't.
Perhaps I'm reactionary.
I don't like having my world changed and dictated to me, much like others don't like the current world they live in and desire to change it.
That's why living with the vote of the majorities on this matter is more palatable. Then, in the future, I can be a fossil and tell the youngsters, "Did you know, when I was growing up, this meant this, and that meant that."

First thing, I don't oppose gay marriages. I just wouldn't let them rise children, just like I wouldn't allow some straight couple make babies if i knew (100% sure) that they are going to divorce just after their child is born.
It's more about preventing than enforcing, as you can see.

I know you(at least, I think it's you) said you had a crap childhood and blame that on being raised by your single mother, but using that single instance to conclude that children should always have one mother and one father or their childhood will be crap is just silly. Plenty of people get raised by a single parent with no ill effects. Plenty of people are raised by two parents and have terrible childhoods.

Ifreean wrote:
Well, I need an intermission to stretch my legs and get some grub. Maybe get some fresh oxygen to the brain.

Final words from me today on the matter:
I sit next to a gay man and his partner at the church I attend. They're nice guys.
I have a lot of doubt as to what is righteous and what isn't.
Perhaps I'm reactionary.
I don't like having my world changed and dictated to me, much like others don't like the current world they live in and desire to change it.
That's why living with the vote of the majorities on this matter is more palatable. Then, in the future, I can be a fossil and tell the youngsters, "Did you know, when I was growing up, this meant this, and that meant that."
The future is now, Dino-boy. Enjoy your supper.

I know you(at least, I think it's you) said you had a crap childhood and blame that on being raised by your single mother, but using that single instance to conclude that children should always have one mother and one father or their childhood will be crap is just silly. Plenty of people get raised by a single parent with no ill effects. Plenty of people are raised by two parents and have terrible childhoods.


Well, what can I say... You know, plenty of people don't die after being shot with a firearm.

Well, what can I say... You know, plenty of people don't die after being shot with a firearm.

Therefore......what?

Therefore......what?

What I meant is that there is still a serious possibility of psychical harm being done even if it doesn't touch some people. Moreover, don't forget that it doesn't have to be even visible to some point. Human mind is very complicated and fragile.

What I meant is that there is still a serious possibility of psychical harm being done even if it doesn't touch some people. Moreover, don't forget that it doesn't have to be even visible to some point. Human mind is very complicated and fragile.

You'd need to correlate being raised by a single parent with psychological and developmental harm. Something a single "My life sucked" anecdote isn't particularly useful for.

The causal link between "getting shot" and "suffering physical harm" is clear. The one between "raised by a single parent" and "suffered psychological and developmental harm" isn't.

What I meant is that there is still a serious possibility of psychical harm being done even if it doesn't touch some people. Moreover, don't forget that it doesn't have to be even visible to some point. Human mind is very complicated and fragile.

It's pretty clear to everyone above the age of 5 that being hit by a small piece of metal travelling at high speeds will do damage to your body, regardless of where exactly it hits you. It's kinda a function of the laws of reality.

When a child has only one parent, not so obvious.

You'd need to correlate being raised by a single parent with psychological and developmental harm. Something a single "My life sucked" anecdote isn't particularly useful for.

The causal link between "getting shot" and "suffering physical harm" is clear. The one between "raised by a single parent" and "suffered psychological and developmental harm" isn't.

This is getting a bit personal. I just think that a child should be raised with both female and male parental influence, otherwise, may lack something. Maybe it's just my feeling, but it's confirmed to a certain degree (by a certain number of cases).

It's pretty clear to everyone above the age of 5 that being hit by a small piece of metal travelling at high speeds will do damage to your body, regardless of where exactly it hits you. It's kinda a function of the laws of reality.

When a child has only one parent, not so obvious.

Yeah, but don't take it literally.

No, how can a thing you're born with and have no choice about be wrong? That's like saying someone's hair colour is wrong.

homsexuality is not wrong in any regard, however saying that just because your born with a certain quirk of character there is no way it can be wrong is very very naive.
I also feel that where ever possible a child should be raised by a male and female parent. As a single father myself who has raised a bright, confident and well behaved daughter i accept that the traditional mother/father set up is not essential to a childs welbeing and development but still feel that in an ideal world mother/father is what should be aimed for.

Yeah, but don't take it literally.

Oh no, I see the point you're trying to make. I'm just saying you don't really have any basis for this except your own life.

Maybe it's just my feeling, but it's confirmed to a certain degree.

Problem is, it's not, really. There have been a fair number of studies done on the subject, and what seems to be the consistent result is that the number of caring, involved adults in a child's life matters a great deal; the gender does not. A kid with two dads, two uncles, two grandfathers, and three male family friends who are always there for her and love her very much seems to be in fabulous shape compared to a kid with one mother and one father, and that kid does vastly better than a kid in foster care with no consistent adult caretakers at all - which is one reason why I find the idea that gay couples shouldn't adopt because it's somehow bad for the kids particularly ludicrous, because I really can't fathom how having two parents of the same gender who love you could plausibly be worse than having no parents.

Oh no, I see the point you're trying to make. I'm just saying you don't really have any basis for this except your own life.

Well, I know many other people who are/were raised by single parents. I can say that most if not every of them have or had this smaller or bigger flaw on them.
EDIT:
Problem is, it's not, really. There have been a fair number of studies done on the subject, and what seems to be the consistent result is that the number of caring, involved adults in a child's life matters a great deal; the gender does not. A kid with two dads, two uncles, two grandfathers, and three male family friends who are always there for her and love her very much seems to be in fabulous shape compared to a kid with one mother and one father, and that kid does vastly better than a kid in foster care with no consistent adult caretakers at all - which is one reason why I find the idea that gay couples shouldn't adopt because it's somehow bad for the kids particularly ludicrous, because I really can't fathom how having two parents of the same gender who love you could plausibly be worse than having no parents.

Interesting. Well, I must do some studying on this subject, then.

Well, I know many other people who are/were raised by single parents. I can say that most if not every of them have or had this smaller or bigger flaw on them.

And you know for a fact that this 'flaw' would not exist if they had two parents, one of each sex?

And you know for a fact that this 'flaw' would not exist if they had two parents, one of each sex?

Everybody knows that woman and man are slightly (yea...) different and therefore can pass different kinds of values, examples. So if a child would get its upbringing just from parents of same sex, an unfilled niche could develop. Yeah, I can be wrong now, maybe it is just my opinion.

Yay! Someone I can agree with. Down with marriage!

DISCLAIMER: Agreeing with me may lead to immorality and cannibalism.

DISCLAIMER: Agreeing with me may lead to immorality and cannibalism.

Can I eat the brains or it's just zombification?

The woman should be of age the man should be of age. They should both be Christian. That is pretty much it. Why what have you got? Bring it, no holding back on us.

I need to educate a (supposed) Catholic on the restrictions on marriage in a Catholic Church?

Go to your Priest, and say to him "Sir, I'm telling people that as long as its a man and a woman, and both are of age and 'Christian', that they can be married in the Catholic Church. Am I correct, or are there a host of reasons related to Divorce and other matters that will cause the Church to decline to marry a couple?"

Then listen.

Walking in the flesh versus walking in the spirit. Being human is walking in the flesh, which is carnal (by definition, actually). If Jesus didn't walk in the flesh AS WELL AS the spirit, then he wasn't human.

To err is human, remember.

I think he was he had legs, arms, walked, talked, ate, slept, worked, danced, and drank. He was happy, sad, angry, joyful, hungry, tired. He experienced pain as we do. Sounds pretty human to me.


That wasn't actually the point I was making.

What I was referring to is that the only assurance you have that the Bible is the word of GOD rather than of SATAN, is that the bible itself says so... as it would even if Satan wrote it, no?

This goes back to wrote the Bible. There were some 150 different people or more. We have to trust that they got it right, else we are in really big trouble.


You keep saying that, and I keep showing evidences that suggest the contrary. At this point, it's resembling faith in the face of reason.


No, I think you have a very interesting view points. I think you are an excellent debater. Seriously you really are very good at this. I think you have a lot of points that make one stop and think and examine what they believe. You seem to have the ability to find all those obscure passages and stitch them together and then use those for your own ends. I must say I enjoy it. We can agree to disagree and still be civil.

I need to educate a (supposed) Catholic on the restrictions on marriage in a Catholic Church?

Go to your Priest, and say to him "Sir, I'm telling people that as long as its a man and a woman, and both are of age and 'Christian', that they can be married in the Catholic Church. Am I correct, or are there a host of reasons related to Divorce and other matters that will cause the Church to decline to marry a couple?"

Then listen.

Of course you are correct they can't already be married either of them. You have me there. I tend to omit the obvious one and then someone like you points them out. Damn I never thought of that one. You also have to agree to raise any children as Catholics. Neither can be coerced into marriage.

And awesome.

Sometimes they probably do mean it as you say, which isn't MUCH of a better answer, anyway - but at least it's not AS obviously nonsensical.

Never said it was a better answer or argument against homsexuality.

When the man stands up to preach, he may face the choir, but the spirit of the message will be heard by all within range of his voice. If those who NEED to hear his ministry are in the church, they will also hear.

Well I hope these people read your post then.

*snip*

I never knew your were Catholic TB, and you speak as if you are a representative of the church and all Catholics. I have news for you you don't so ow about shutting it until you can post without this sense of representation. Not all Catholics hold the same view point as you and I don't know about your parish but I can name a few parish's that don't shun non-heterosexual people from the church.

I think he was he had legs, arms, walked, talked, ate, slept, worked, danced, and drank. He was happy, sad, angry, joyful, hungry, tired. He experienced pain as we do. Sounds pretty human to me.

Yes, the Church decided this whole thing a thousand years ago.

How about we turn the coin over....

What can we say is intrinsically "right" about homosexuality?
(some humor, don't take this seriously, after all, to be funny there has to be a little truth about stereotypes)
Fashion Sense? The way females feel comfortable about gay guys? Ooo, I actually do feel comfortable around lesbians (similar interests and all).

But seriously, what is so peachy keen about homosexuality that everybody ought to embrace everything about them?

Answering that question will be a step toward whether it's right or wrong.

How about we turn the coin over....

What can we say is intrinsically "right" about homosexuality?

That it makes the people who willingly engage in it happy, and harms no one. And in the realm of human existence, what can be more right, then something that makes people happy, and harms no one?

How about we turn the coin over....

What can we say is intrinsically "right" about homosexuality?
(some humor, don't take this seriously, after all, to be funny there has to be a little truth about stereotypes)
Fashion Sense? The way females feel comfortable about them? Ooo, I actually do feel comfortable around lesbians (similar intrests and all).

But seriously, what is so peachy keen about homosexuality that everybody ought to embrace everything about them?

Answering that question will be a step toward whether it's right or wrong.

Gay people are people. That's the only answer you need.

Screw Adam and fuck Eve. In the ass. Both. With a CACTUS.

That's a strange fetish you have there.

Poliwanacraca wrote:Gay people are people. That's the only answer you need.
Aw, c'mon. If it were that simple, no one would bother coming to this forum. Unhygenic people are people, too. I don't necessarily want to sit next to them in a theatre. Homosexuals are people with a (IMHO) behavioral difference about them.
Back up your statement, okay.

Aw, c'mon. If it were that simple, no one would bother coming to this forum. Unhygenic people are people, too. I don't necessarily want to sit next to them in a theatre. Homosexuals are people with a (IMHO) behavioral difference about them.
Back up your statement, okay.

Of course they have a behavioral difference. They behave in ways different from you. Namely, by having sex with same sex partners, which you don't.

The question is, so what?

Poliwanacraca wrote:
Aw, c'mon. If it were that simple, no one would bother coming to this forum. Unhygenic people are people, too. I don't necessarily want to sit next to them in a theatre. Homosexuals are people with a (IMHO) behavioral difference about them.
Back up your statement, okay.

Do I have to give an anatomy lesson here?

Neo Art wrote:That it makes the people who willingly engage in it happy, and harms no one. And in the realm of human existence, what can be more right, then something that makes people happy, and harms no one?

Thank you. A very nice response and worthy of congratulations for reasoning.

Bear with me, are all things that do not apparently harm willing participants and make them happy good things?

Poliwanacraca wrote:
Aw, c'mon. If it were that simple, no one would bother coming to this forum. Unhygenic people are people, too. I don't necessarily want to sit next to them in a theatre. Homosexuals are people with a (IMHO) behavioral difference about them.
Back up your statement, okay.

See NA's post.

However, when discussing whether a category of people deserve the same rights, dignity, and respect as everyone else, the only question you really need to answer is "Are they people?" If someone never showers, I may not like being around them, but they absolutely have all the same rights I do.

Neo Art wrote:

Thank you. A very nice response and worthy of congratulations for reasoning.

Bear with me, are all things that do not apparently harm willing participants and make them happy good things?

It depends what you mean by "apparently," but yes, I'd say anything that does no harm to anyone and makes those involved happy is fairly obviously good.

Neo Art wrote:Of course they have a behavioral difference. They behave in ways different from you. Namely, by having sex with same sex partners, which you don't.Actually, I stressed the word "behavioral" because there are people who believe that the phenomenon is genetic and others who believe it is environmental or learned.

Thank you. A very nice response and worthy of congratulations for reasoning.

Bear with me, are all things that do not apparently harm willing participants and make them happy good things?

As long as we define "participants" as willing adults capable of giving informed, reasoned consent, and it brings no harm to those who do not consent, then as a general proposition, I can agree to that.

But then again, it's a strained rationale. I don't think homosexuality is "good". I think it's just "not bad". It, as a thing, is neutral. Sexual desire towards same sex partners is not good. It's not bad. It just is. Happiness is good. Being happy with the partner of your choice, regardless of the gender of the partner, is good.

Actually, I stressed the word "behavioral" because there are people who believe that the phenomenon is genetic and others who believe it is environmental or learned.

the term "behavioral" takes no side in that, so I'm unsure why the stress is there. Unless by using it you are trying to state that homosexual desire is a "choice"...well, I'm tired of that noise.

Poliwanacraca wrote:It depends what you mean by "apparently," but yes, I'd say anything that does no harm to anyone and makes those involved happy is fairly obviously good.

Okay, I'm with you there. The problem is, this world has really taught me a lot of pessimism. I am slightly paranoid over the law of unintended consequences. That and I enjoy debate more than crossword puzzles for sharpening the brain.

Hypothetical Question: If we learned that homosexuality shortened lifespans like cigarettes, would that count as harm? After all, a long time ago (and this is just for historical reference) doctors thought that smoking was beneficial. People willingly enjoyed tobacco and they didn't think anyone was being harmed.

Poliwanacraca wrote:

Okay, I'm with you there. The problem is, this world has really taught me a lot of pessimism. I am slightly paranoid over the law of unintended consequences. That and I enjoy debate more than crossword puzzles for sharpening the brain.

Hypothetical Question: If we learned that homosexuality shortened lifespans like cigarettes, would that count as harm? After all, a long time ago (and this is just for historical reference) doctors thought that smoking was beneficial. People willingly enjoyed tobacco and they didn't think anyone was being harmed.
We have known about homosexuality among humans for approximately 100,000 years (at least). Don't you think we would have noticed by now if it had significantly detrimental effects?

Poliwanacraca wrote:

Okay, I'm with you there. The problem is, this world has really taught me a lot of pessimism. I am slightly paranoid over the law of unintended consequences. That and I enjoy debate more than crossword puzzles for sharpening the brain.

Hypothetical Question: If we learned that homosexuality shortened lifespans like cigarettes, would that count as harm? After all, a long time ago (and this is just for historical reference) doctors thought that smoking was beneficial. People willingly enjoyed tobacco and they didn't think anyone was being harmed.

harm consented to is still fine. We make cost benefit analysis every day. We do things that are harmful to us, every day. Every time an american scarfs down a big mac, he does something harmful.

If on the other hand they consent to taking on that lowered life expectancy, of their own free will....then...that's their freely made choice.

ypothetical Question: If we learned that homosexuality shortened lifespans like cigarettes, would that count as harm? After all, a long time ago (and this is just for historical reference) doctors thought that smoking was beneficial. People willingly enjoyed tobacco and they didn't think anyone was being harmed.

Supposing it did, so what?

Poliwanacraca wrote:

Okay, I'm with you there. The problem is, this world has really taught me a lot of pessimism. I am slightly paranoid over the law of unintended consequences. That and I enjoy debate more than crossword puzzles for sharpening the brain.

Hypothetical Question: If we learned that homosexuality shortened lifespans like cigarettes, would that count as harm? After all, a long time ago (and this is just for historical reference) doctors thought that smoking was beneficial. People willingly enjoyed tobacco and they didn't think anyone was being harmed.

...how would that even work? I mean, I get that it's a hypothetical, but the simple fact is that there is no conceivable way in which homosexuality could have negative physical effects. Assuming you really mean "homosexual intercourse," that's still utterly absurd, but sure, if somehow it turned out there really was such a thing as "cooties" but you actually got it from kissing members of your own sex, that could count as harm - but it would still be harming yourself, not anyone else, and thus you'd be hard-pressed to argue that that was in any way wrong or immoral.

Neo Art wrote:harm consented to is still fine. We make cost benefit analysis every day. We do things that are harmful to us, every day. Every time an american scarfs down a big mac, he does something harmful.

If on the other hand they consent to taking on that lowered life expectancy, of their own free will....then...that's their freely made choice.The Parkus Empire wrote:Supposing it did, so what?

Well, the current majority of society seems to have no problem in telling the smokers how wrong they are. And harming one's self, voluntarily for enjoyment? Voluntarily shortening one's life seems a little crazy.

But anyway, I do not believe homosexuality shortens lifespans, except AIDS, which is more manageble than when it first became widely known.