The "Same-Sex Marriage" Debate.

[Cannibal]

Because there's bound to be one in every Debate forum.

What are your views on Same-Sex Marriage? Do you find it immoral, or are you perfectly fine with it? What do you think about children raised in Same-Sex Marriage homes?

I personally don't see a single thing wrong with it. With any of it. I believe you should be able to marry whoever you want, as long as that person isn't intermediately related to you. Honestly, what two other people do in the bedroom together is none of my business, so why should I try to interfere? Studies have shown that even children raised in homes with parents of the same sex have grown up to be perfectly fine. Yes, there are studies that have shown that they don't grow up with a "normal childhood", but what is normal?

What are your thoughts?

[Chockeh]

I don't think anything is wrong with it. But I would probably to avoid the person in question.

[Hiccup]

I believe it is fine as well if their not in your family or directly related to you (in any way).

[BobYoMeowMeow]

The cat wonders why humans bother to care about humans of the same sex marrying.
It's not like they have to marry the same gender as well.

The cat didn't understand this concept of homesexuality when it was first explained to the cat.
Two males?
Two females?

That kind of reaction. The cat still have confusion moments
:@_@:

[Laconicus]

I fully support it. Even though I do find the thought of it kinda gross lol

1. It's been scientifically shown that almost all homosexuals were born that way. Only a small percentage chose to be that way. Why would you discriminate against someone because they were born differently than you? Honestly, that's no different than being racist or sexist.

2. Homosexuals can't have kids (unless they adopted or went to a sperm bank). This is great considering that humans are heavily overpopulated. Homosexuality can actually save the Earth by preventing every square inch of land from being covered by humans >___> Plus, it's plain economically better for countries to have low population growth. The closer you get to zero population growth, the better. As far as I know Russia is the only country with a declining population (actually there may be a couple more, I don't remember), so homosexuality would economically benefit any country but Russia (etc.).

3. Why is homosexuality such a big deal? I'll tell you why. Because of religion. I can't say anything about other religions because I don't know about them, but I can tell you this about Christianity. In the Bible it says not to practice homosexuality. It also says not to lie or have bad thoughts. Don't even tell me that you don't do either of those. (*From a Christian perspective,*) God gave us free will. Who are you to prevent people from having the freedom to sin?

[Sanctus]

I don't mind any of this. In fact, I usually find it kinda annoying when people use "Gay" as a derogatory term. If the two people fall in love, so be it. It might be a bit different if ONE person was but the other wasn't. Meh.

[Kazuni]

There's really nothing wrong with it, except, like said before, the religious beliefs.

And I think we all know how much religion affects people these days.

One of my friends is hardcore christian, and she always says that homosexuality is a sin, and the person chose to be like that, and they could convert back. I always throw back how she doesn't support incest, and if Adam&Eve existed we'd all be children of incest.
One thing I hate about how some christians or catholics react to homosexuality is that they think the person chose it. Personally, I believe they were born with it, and yeah, it's just like being racist or sexist.

I'm atheist, just saying.

[Cannibal]

3. Why is homosexuality such a big deal? I'll tell you why. Because of religion. I can't say anything about other religions because I don't know about them, but I can tell you this about Christianity. In the Bible it says not to practice homosexuality. It also says not to lie or have bad thoughts. Don't even tell me that you don't do either of those. (*From a Christian perspective,*) God gave us free will. Who are you to prevent people from having the freedom to sin?
The bible also says not to eat shellfish. :)

[Axx]

Offtopic:

Uh, no, zero population growth is very very bad (economically). Just ask the Japanese, who are struggling with low birth rates and an aging population. Who supports that aging population? The next generation. Population growth is negative? A lower number of young people support an increasing number of older people. What about jobs? As the aging population retires, there are more jobs than there are employees, leading to lots of bad stuff! Etc etc etc. Although it still amazes me that everyone seems to think GDP and the economy should always be going up, up, up. rant rant rant....
/offtopic.

Ontopic:
Gay and lesbian couples have every right to be as miserable and angry as hetero married couples.

[Hiccup]

^lol'd Indeed they do

[Mrlucky77]

I think it's 'aaallllll gooooood y'all' cause I can't really imagine it will affect me in any way.

[Kyouriharu]

Gays marry. Wooooooo... scary.

I swear, some people are so afraid of people who are "different" to their eyes that they just complain until everything is "right" in their eyes.

[Laconicus]

The bible also says not to eat shellfish. :)
It also says to get married. It also says not to get married. I've heard that it says not to shave but I haven't looked that up myself yet.

Offtopic:

Uh, no, zero population growth is very very bad (economically). Just ask the Japanese, who are struggling with low birth rates and an aging population. Who supports that aging population? The next generation. Population growth is negative? A lower number of young people support an increasing number of older people. What about jobs? As the aging population retires, there are more jobs than there are employees, leading to lots of bad stuff! Etc etc etc. Although it still amazes me that everyone seems to think GDP and the economy should always be going up, up, up. rant rant rant....
/offtopic.This is because it went from having high population growth to near zero, so it's currently dealing with an upside-down population pyramid. Yeah, this is bad right now, but it will be gone forever once the old generation's gone. The ideal country would have an equal number of old and young people, which can only be achieved through zero population growth (although, I guess this wouldn't happen immediately)

(...Well, actually old people just leech off the country's money, but the point is that the country needs to have a low number of births so the population doesn't explode and the country isn't able to afford to have all the kids)

[Time]

This isnt much of a debate is it lol....I fully support it, I mean I dont get why people disagree with it...Its not like if it exists, YOU have to be gay, just the people who happen to be gay can be gay.

[Hitaki]

Pikachu. Pi pikachu pika.

(Pika doesn't care. In all honesty, people should be able to get married regardless of gender.)

[Chockeh]

Hetero shields are boring anyways.

[Axx]

Well, since no one's gonna take up the against side, I'll throw this out here:


The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/homosexuality.html) Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

[Phunkie]

I strongly believe that people ought to be able to love, marry and sex whoever they want to, as long as it's legally consensual.

I mean, I have no problem with a 16 year old girl choosing to have sex with someone who is 20 years old, but that goes into a whole new other topic. So that's why I say legally consensual.



Well, since no one's gonna take up the against side, I'll throw this out here:

This is a biased link. The name of the website is God and Religion.

The only way I can think why being gay would be dangerous is if you live in a very homophobic society, such as many Islamic societies, and you decide to come out of the closet.

You can run into a lot of people who will bash you and will not hesitate in physically hurting you.

Such a sad world, that one of the Middle East.

[Chiri]

I don't really think being gay is a 'lifestyle'.
If I go to class, eat lunch, go to more class, come home, play video games, eat dinner... but have a SO who also happens to be female? I don't think I'm living a lifestyle too different from my straight counterparts.

[Phunkie]

A lifestyle is a way a person lives.

ANY way of living can be considered a lifestyle.

Waking up at 2 pm every day = lifestyle.


But yes, I agree. The way a gay person lives isn't so much different than one of a straight person.

[Axx]

This is a biased link. The name of the website is God and Religion.


FINE, directly from the sources that they quoted:


OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men. METHODS: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years. RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%. CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

will edit in the other ones as I get to them...

[Laconicus]

This is a biased link. The name of the website is God and Religion.
That's what I thought too, but to be fair if you google "gay life expectancy" there are a lot of other links that say the same thing, like this. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html) I don't know what to say about the argument o_O

Edit: oh ninja'd lol

[Chiri]

.-. that's saying gay people with AIDs have low life expectancy.

All people with AIDs have low life expectancy.

[Phunkie]

People with HIV/AIDS live shorter than people without. No doubt about that.

Not all gay people have HIV/AIDS.

I'm pretty sure healthy gay people live as long as healthy straight people.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

[EndlessDreams]

Offtopic:

Uh, no, zero population growth is very very bad (economically). Just ask the Japanese, who are struggling with low birth rates and an aging population. Who supports that aging population? The next generation. Population growth is negative? A lower number of young people support an increasing number of older people. What about jobs? As the aging population retires, there are more jobs than there are employees, leading to lots of bad stuff! Etc etc etc. Although it still amazes me that everyone seems to think GDP and the economy should always be going up, up, up. rant rant rant....
/offtopic.


Zero population growth is usually a trend for "rich" first world countries. Some of the European countries and Japan is like this. The people in these countries are just way too busy with their jobs and careers to make/raise children. It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage at all.

If you look at some of the poorer countries, their growth rates are insane.

I do not believe religion should be the foundation for any law. Just look at that Sharia law that is in many third world countries. (Or the Middle Ages, lol) Then look at some of the first world countries where religion do not have complete control of governments. The well being of a country seem to be tied to how close is the government and religion.

The only justification for the banning of same-sex marriages are all religious reasons
(mainly Christian fundamentalism in the US).

No, I do not support the banning of gay marriages, nor do I support any religious laws.

[Tedio]

I could care less.

But leave the whole parenting alone. I wouldn't want to be raised by a same sex couple, especially in this day and age.....

[Chockeh]

How do you encourage someone who is completely hetero to be gay anyways?

[Phunkie]

I could care less.

But leave the whole parenting alone. I wouldn't want to be raised by a same sex couple, especially in this day and age.....

You say you don't care, but then you say you wouldn't want to be raised by gay couples.

That screams out contradiction.

Why?

[Axx]

Well I totally skimmed over the 'how we did this part' and just went to the conclusions, because I assumed that an actual published article wouldn't do something as idiotic and pointless as "assigning certain percentages of a population as gay, and attributing 95% of hiv-related deaths to that % of the population". My god, how they even got their article started is a mystery to me. I lose that one.

[Tarvos]

I support gay marriage, since, there's nothing wrong with it at all. Really, I don't see why on earth, outside of religious reasons (and I myself hold the same position that Endless does) people even care about weather gays can get married or not...

[Axx]

Hmm, perhaps this question will work:

If civil unions were legally identical to marriage, would there still be an issue? (also assume civil unions are legal everywhere)

[Hiccup]

Well, since no one's gonna take up the against side, I'll throw this out here:

Not gonna hate since you don't (?) support being against it.

That is only true due to being gay is socially awkward and people will hate you for it even if they don't know you. The extreme amount of bullying can lead looking for an escape through anything really. I've been called gay for 8 years straight, non-stop. Just cause I "act gay" doesn't mean I am.

[Axx]

That is only true due to being gay is socially awkward and people will hate you for it even if they don't know you. The extreme amount of bullying can lead looking for an escape through anything really. I've been called gay for 8 years straight, non-stop. Just cause I "act gay" doesn't mean I am.

I agree with you, but as shown farther up that point's support was a research study studying how long gay men with AIDS live. So, completely out of context and unusable in a real debate. D=

Not really caring enough right now to find "good" points against gay marriage. Chances are high that there aren't any. But then the discussion becomes boring.

[Phunkie]

Hmm, perhaps this question will work:

If civil unions were legally identical to marriage, would there still be an issue? (also assume civil unions are legal everywhere)

If they are exactly identical to marriage, then why not call it so?

To distinguish both would be kinda unfair, don't you think? That is, if they are exactly the same.


Separate but equal, sort of thing.

[Axx]

To placate/pacify those who view marriage as

1. a holy institution

2. between a man and a woman.

I don't really care personally about point #1 but I can kinda see where those who feel strongly about the sanctity of point 2 might be coming from.

[Tedio]

You say you don't care, but then you say you wouldn't want to be raised by gay couples.

That screams out contradiction.

Why?

Because its not the norm, its not average.

Possibly when it becomes less taboo I wouldn't be against them raising children.

Marriage? Fine. Children? Not so much. Just trying to think about the kid itself.

[Phunkie]

But what about civil marriages? They're more legal than religious.

Changing the name would only happen to satisfy certain groups of people, I agree. But that's so unfair and wrong.


lol @ this debate btw. We're all pretty much for it and no one's against it.

I'm boooored.

[Hiccup]

Gays suck

/thread

debate!

[Axx]

Er, no, that doesn't really do anything.

Although, I gathered from the locked thread and this one that to most (some?) it doesn't really matter who the parents are, as long as they are loving and willing to put in the effort to raise a child properly. Agree or disagree with this?

[Hiccup]

Lol I know but literally they do suck!!! Serious.

If the parents are good and keep the kid happy and healthy then good, but if were gonna bring up that old closed debate again...................................... you all know my opinion.

[Juno]

Eventually, someone's going to come in and disagree and all of you are going to jump on them like those evil flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz.

That being said, I think this thread is a horrible idea since it's not really something that can be debated with numbers and facts so much as opinions.

Annnnnd that being said marriage right now caters to hetero couples who are child-bearing, at least in the US. Tax breaks and such apply even before children because they're obviously coming. I think marriage laws should be reworked to accommodate couples that are childless and plan to remain that way. No need to discriminate on sex, just on children in terms of tax breaks. Adopted kids count too. Of course, I doubt many people really plan to get married just for the tax breaks.

[Syrphid]

Children of gay parents will be discriminated against amongst their peers. This will make their life far more difficult than it has to be. Therefore it is immoral for gay parents to raise children. Gay marriage is fine, but adoption should be off limits.

[EndlessDreams]

Children of gay parents will be discriminated against amongst their peers. This will make their life far more difficult than it has to be. Therefore it is immoral for gay parents to raise children. Gay marriage is fine, but adoption should be off limits.

You talk as if children of minority groups aren't discriminated against their peers. (Whether it is religious, ethics, wealth, and/or etc.)

Discrimination and intolerance can be found in many societies.

Under the same logic, "black" parents shouldn't adopt non-black children because they will be heavily discriminated against in certain communities.

It would be immoral for those parents to adopt children not their own ethnicity?

[Axx]

But if that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with letting loving incestuous couples marry and raise an adopted child. Or even a loving polygamous uh...triple or quadruple?

[Magenera]

It is really hard to be on the no side for the fact of their not being much to go on in terms of facts on reason not to. Then if one was to bring up how it is sin to do so, and therefore they shouldn't do so and should be banned, they themselves have committed sin of forcing their beliefs down their throats.
Also homosexuals having low life expectancy might be related to stress more so then anything else, as it is a deviant, and therefore people ostracized them.

[Phunkie]

Because its not the norm, its not average.

Possibly when it becomes less taboo I wouldn't be against them raising children.

Marriage? Fine. Children? Not so much. Just trying to think about the kid itself.

There are kids with so many types of parents.

One parent.
Two parents, divorced.
Two parents, one disabled.
Foster parents.

Heck, I heard of a blind couple who got married and had kids.

AND a family of midgets, whose kids were taller than the parents.

These are not average families, but the kids usually end up growing up like any other kids.


At the other hand, I would think that the kids of these different, non-average parents would love them even more, once knowing all the difficulties and obstacles they've faced in life just because they were different.

I don't agree with you therefore.

In school they'll make fun of you for anything. In society too. But if your parents raise you well (whoever they are), it doesn't matter. Yes, it's a little harder if you're gay (in some places), but not everywhere. Definitely not everywhere.


Kids end up fine, especially if they've had two Dads or Moms since they can remember. It's normal to them, right? They would question it when they see their other classmates with a Mom and a Dad, perhaps. But they wouldn't love their own parents any less.

And if people are willing to give love and receive it too, why not let them adopt?

[Osayidan]

I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.

If they want to do all the legal stuff, I'd support a civil union as opposed to marriage, since it doesn't involve any sort of religious nonsense. I'd say the same for any couple though, be they hetero or not.

[Syrphid]

This issue is identical to that presented in the incest thread, yet responses seem to be completely opposite. What gives?

Arbitrary hate is arbitrary, it seems.

[Virtue]

Gay marriage is fine, it's just a secular contractual agreement. At least when it's not done in the religious-institution sense.

But I don't agree with two members of the same sex as parents.

[Iyasenu]

My side on the Same-sex marriage debate has always kinda confused me.

Me? I'm a Christian. Always have always will, ya'know.
But when I keep seeing that SSM is against the law here, I always get annoyed.
So I support SSM. But it's confused me since according to my religion homosexuality is deemed wrong.
I just kind of picture myself in that situation of loving someone but not being able to marry them... which is kinda hard itself since I've kinda always been single lol, but you get the picture. Empathy would be the word for it I think.

But as for polygamy and incestual relationships.... They... always kind of weirded me out... technically I guess it's not my place to keep anyone from doing anything so long as it's not something bad or hurting someone...


I don't even mind if it's called "marriage".
As for being raised by SS parents... I guess it wouldn't matter.
My childhood was hardly what would fit into definition of the ever decreasing pool of families that have "normal" lives. :XD:
So as long as they don't happen to be abusive or neglectful (just like straight people can be) or something and they show their children love like parents should, then it should be fine.

But my views still kind of contradict themselves.
I'm supposed to find homosexuality wrong(?)
But I'm supposed to treat others as I'd like to be (even if it means to find nothing wrong with homosexuality...?)

I mean, I'm happy to be Christian, it's just touchy topics like this make me bend the rules a bit. :P


But in short, I support SSM. And even though polygamous or incestuous relationships kinda weird me out, that's just an opinion and shouldn't really be against the law... Not like just because something is made to be legal, we have to do it as well.

Well, that's all for now I think. :oops: I typed a bit, huh?

[Virtue]

As for being raised by SS parents... I guess it wouldn't matter.
Not directed at you per se, but it isn't known if being raised by same-sex parents is as psychologically healthy as a traditional home.

Inb4 single moms, abusive fathers etc... We are talking adoption here, very long and selective process.

[starpaw7]

Everyone typed for me except for:

How is it "less healty" to be raised by gay parents than a straight couple :what:

[Justified]

You talk as if children of minority groups aren't discriminated against their peers. (Whether it is religious, ethics, wealth, and/or etc.)

Why add more fuel to the fire? Just because this kid is gonna get discriminated against for being -insert race here-, that doesn't mean you should go ahead and name him -insert crappy name here- and make him wear -insert crappy clothes here-. Just because the kid is gonna have a hard time, that doesn't make it okay to make it even harder.


This issue is identical to that presented in the incest thread, yet responses seem to be completely opposite. What gives?

First thing on my mind since the OP, and nobody brought it up.
Argument in support of SSM - Anybody who loves each other should be able to get married. This doesn't affect me, why should it matter?
Incest couples love each other, and won't affect you. Doesn't that mean it's okay to do?
Oh right, and polygynous and polyandrous groups as well

Also, in response to that HIV study, I don't think it was completely off the mark. This is mostly for male couples.


“There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex,” the paper warns. It cites studies indicating that “Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.”

The brief notes also that “Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238).”

The brief warns “Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.”

The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021709.html

In short...
Anal sex has a 500% chance of contracting HIV as opposed to no anal sex. Homosexuals perform anal, therefore it is bad.
70% of HIV in Canada in 6/2004 was homosexual men. Obvious bad thing is obvious.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are somewhat related. According to a survey (?) 3% of the total population is homosexual, but 25% of the pedophilia population is homosexual. Meaning, proportionally, there are less heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones. Allowing homosexuality would be somewhat endorsing pedophilia.

/revives thread

[Juno]

For the record, while the bible states that homosexuality is a sin it also states that we're to 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's' which sparing you the full story amounts to not forcing our beliefs into the country's law. A Christian shouldn't be engaging in a ssm but they also shouldn't be trying to make it illegal for others to do so.

[Rime]

This issue is identical to that presented in the incest thread, yet responses seem to be completely opposite. What gives?

Arbitrary hate is arbitrary, it seems.

It has to do with culture. Kids today are being taught by the media to be more tolerant towards gay relationships. Not much progress has been in the incest department. I'd wager that, from a biological standpoint, it has to deal with people's inherent, psychological aversion to incest. It's been shown in various studies that children who grow up within the same household are less likely to be attracted to one-another; this trait is shown to not be limited to people who are very closely related by blood, meaning a boy and his half/adopted sister will be as likely to fall in love as a bother and sister related by blood (this might explain the grandma incest thing). However, units of the family are usually associated as blood relatives, so people referring to incest usually refer think about the blood relatives that they've grown up with. In addition to this, there are well-known repercussions to producing with closely related kin, including the circulation of genetic diseases and higher risks or birth defects. All of these factors culminate into very cemented norms that people instinctively follow in choosing their partners.

A large factor that contributes to the norms dictating against gay relationships religion (Judeo-Christian religions to be exact), and as of recently, religion seems to be losing its voice against the media that's been promoting the newfound tolerance towards these types of of relationships. As a result, there has been more tolerance towards gays, while the tolerance level towards incest has remained relatively the same.



Eventually, someone's going to come in and disagree and all of you are going to jump on them like those evil flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz.

That being said, I think this thread is a horrible idea since it's not really something that can be debated with numbers and facts so much as opinions.

Annnnnd that being said marriage right now caters to hetero couples who are child-bearing, at least in the US. Tax breaks and such apply even before children because they're obviously coming. I think marriage laws should be reworked to accommodate couples that are childless and plan to remain that way. No need to discriminate on sex, just on children in terms of tax breaks. Adopted kids count too. Of course, I doubt many people really plan to get married just for the tax breaks.

No one has children for tax breaks. It's not worth it. I don't recommend it at least D:
If anything, the breaks should apply to income level in that married couples with similar income level pay a smaller amount of tax than they would if they were single. Not sure if legal unions count work the same way though.


For the record, while the bible states that homosexuality is a sin it also states that we're to 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's' which sparing you the full story amounts to not forcing our beliefs into the country's law. A Christian shouldn't be engaging in a ssm but they also shouldn't be trying to make it illegal for others to do so.

By that logic, gay Christians should either renounce their faith or stop being gay. Both choices sound ridiculous.

[Justified]

I missed the conversation that went on in that locked thread so I won't go further into it, but it's pretty hypocritical to allow one but not the other.

"People naturally don't find relatives attractive, therefore don't tolerate it" - Does everybody who supports SSM find their fellow man/woman attractive? I doubt that everybody who is pro-SSM is either gay or bi.
"Incest leads to genetic diseases" - Well, homosexually leads to sexually transmitted diseases at a much higher rate.

"True love which doesn't affect me" applies to SSM, so why not incest? If it doesn't work for incest, then it shouldn't work for SSM, and therefore that entire logic doesn't work and anti-gay marriage wins.

[Tomates]

I'm super okay with same sex marriages. I feel anyone should marry anyone if they love them.
I was awfully surprised when California voted down same sex marriges. I went there 2 summers ago and there's a rather large gay community there and it seemed like everyone supported one another whether you were straight or not.

[Rime]

I missed the conversation that went on in that locked thread so I won't go further into it, but it's pretty hypocritical to allow one but not the other.

"People naturally don't find relatives attractive, therefore don't tolerate it" - Does everybody who supports SSM find their fellow man/woman attractive? I doubt that everybody who is pro-SSM is either gay or bi.
"Incest leads to genetic diseases" - Well, homosexually leads to sexually transmitted diseases at a much higher rate.

"True love which doesn't affect me" applies to SSM, so why not incest? If it doesn't work for incest, then it shouldn't work for SSM, and therefore that entire logic doesn't work and anti-gay marriage wins.

Incest and gay marriage are two totally different things. The aversion to one happens naturally, while the liking to the other happens naturally, but rarely. The aversion of incest occurs naturally, and it is naturally deemed a crime. Being gay happens naturally, but it is unnaturally deemed a crime due to religionl. My point is that natural human tendencies do affect norms, not should. I don't even know how to describe the calling calling of others who follow their instincts hypocritical...oh yeah, hypocritical.

To put it in outdated Freudian terms that you guys seem to love so much, this is something along the lines of ID versus the superego in terms of the the establishment of norms. In this case, the superego is being rewritten because religion is losing out to the media, while the ID remains the same.

[Criticalxhit]

I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.

The worst invention of humanity?!...:mad:
I have something to say about that...

As a Christian my whole life, I was taught that homosexuality is a perversion (that's the word used in the Bible, I believe). Now, when I entered high school, as was likely, I saw homosexuals. Did I lecture them about being homosexual? No. Did I make a face every time I saw them? No. Even when the (heterosexual) girl beside asked for help on her "Gay Pride" brochure project, I suggested to use a rainbow coloured theme. Just because the Bible says it's a perversion, it doesn't mean Christians shun them & look down at them with scorn.
Believe it or not, my pastor's wife & I were discussing how homosexuals are often kinder than average people. In reality, the people most critical of homosexuality are atheists, etc. who talk about them behind their backs, call them or use derogatory terms (in my experience). I've never known a true Christian to bully a homosexual person because of their choices.

Like Osayidan said, marriage is based on religion, so obviously the church would object to a desecration of an ancient sacred ritual, for the sake of accepting what the majority of the society wants. One thing I , and many other Christians find ridiculous, is that even though the church has been suppressed for many eras now, people become so offended when confronted by Christianity, when the Gay Pride Parade marches freely through Toronto. At my High School, I didn't even know there was a Christian club, because they are prohibited to post things without the principal's permission, and even worse, the club is only allowed ~2 announcements per year. Of course, the Gay/Straight alliance gladly posts things around the school, hands out pencils, and announces meetings whenever possible. And the Christian community aren't supposed to take offense this?


"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/1cor6.html#9) (NKJV) In conclusion, from what I've seen, the majority of forum members don't care whether they "inherit the kingdom of God", and will poke holes in my argument, which they are free to do. After all, God gave us a choice. All I'm saying is that in my opinion hetero shields are preferred to "round" shields (homosexuals in case you didn't catch that metaphor). Hopefully you'll remember this before you jump to any conclusions based on Christianity & Religion in the future. Sorry for the bad metaphor :P I'm sure I'll have some more posts in this thread...

[Chockeh]

Omg I was visiting Toronto when the Gay Parade passed buy. I was 6, and I felt disgusted. I am ashamed :<.

[Justified]

Incest and gay marriage are two totally different things. The aversion to one happens naturally, while the liking to the other happens naturally, but rarely. The aversion of incest occurs naturally, and it is naturally deemed a crime. Being gay happens naturally, but it is unnaturally deemed a crime due to religionl. My point is that natural human tendencies do affect norms, not should. I don't even know how to describe the calling calling of others who follow their instincts hypocritical...oh yeah, hypocritical.

"Two people who love each other should be able to marry. It doesn't affect me, why should I stop them?"
That is the prevalent argument supporting same-sex marriage. It could also apply to incest. Yet, the common individual will only support same-sex marriage and will gag when incest comes up. You can't exactly back one proposition with a statement that is completely ignored for another.

How is incest "naturally" deemed a crime? How come gay marriage criminality isn't "natural"? Couldn't the criminality be natural and just coincidentally be supported by religion? What defines natural crime and unnatural crime? Incest gets deemed illegal just because it rarely happens? That's not exactly fair.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you stand? By the looks of it you're stating mostly facts and I can't really tell what your actual opinions are.

And feel free to leave out Freudian terms, I don't care much for those.

[Osayidan]

The worst invention of humanity?!...:mad:
I have something to say about that...

As a Christian my whole life, I was taught that homosexuality is a perversion (that's the word used in the Bible, I believe). Now, when I entered high school, as was likely, I saw homosexuals. Did I lecture them about being homosexual? No. Did I make a face every time I saw them? No. Even when the (heterosexual) girl beside asked for help on her "Gay Pride" brochure project, I suggested to use a rainbow coloured theme. Just because the Bible says it's a perversion, it doesn't mean Christians shun them & look down at them with scorn.
Believe it or not, my pastor's wife & I were discussing how homosexuals are often kinder than average people. In reality, the people most critical of homosexuality are atheists, etc. who talk about them behind their backs, call them or use derogatory terms (in my experience). I've never known a true Christian to bully a homosexual person because of their choices.

Like Osayidan said, marriage is based on religion, so obviously the church would object to a desecration of an ancient sacred ritual, for the sake of accepting what the majority of the society wants. One thing I , and many other Christians find ridiculous, is that even though the church has been suppressed for many eras now, people become so offended when confronted by Christianity, when the Gay Pride Parade marches freely through Toronto. At my High School, I didn't even know there was a Christian club, because they are prohibited to post things without the principal's permission, and even worse, the club is only allowed ~2 announcements per year. Of course, the Gay/Straight alliance gladly posts things around the school, hands out pencils, and announces meetings whenever possible. And the Christian community aren't supposed to take offense this?

In conclusion, from what I've seen, the majority of forum members don't care whether they "inherit the kingdom of God", and will poke holes in my argument, which they are free to do. After all, God gave us a choice. All I'm saying is that in my opinion hetero shields are preferred to "round" shields (homosexuals in case you didn't catch that metaphor). Hopefully you'll remember this before you jump to any conclusions based on Christianity & Religion in the future. Sorry for the bad metaphor :P I'm sure I'll have some more posts in this thread...


My post is about the relationship between the act/ceremony of marriage and organized religion. Not about the bible being against homosexuals.
I just find that religion is a huge joke, one that has caused so many problems throughout our history, and no one seems to be able to agree on anything.

Because of my aversion to religion, I would be a liar if I said I agree to homosexuals being married, since I don't agree to -anyone- being married. A civil union for the legal benefits is a whole different matter, which I support entirely.

As for the religion stuff maybe I'll start up a thread on it some day. I could probably write a book about it so it's not something I just want to rush and post quickly.

[Criticalxhit]

I was just using your reply as an intro for my essay :P It wasn't directed towards you particularly

[Laconicus]

In conclusion, from what I've seen, the majority of forum members don't care whether they "inherit the kingdom of God", and will poke holes in my argument, which they are free to do. After all, God gave us a choice. All I'm saying is that in my opinion hetero shields are preferred to "round" shields (homosexuals in case you didn't catch that metaphor). Hopefully you'll remember this before you jump to any conclusions based on Christianity & Religion in the future. Sorry for the bad metaphor :P I'm sure I'll have some more posts in this thread...
It seems to me more like the people posting in this thread are mainly atheist, not Christians that just don't care. :P I'm personally agnostic. I can see your viewpoint too, and I don't think that gay religious marriage should be allowed. But gays shouldn't be denied the right to have all the privileges that married couples have. Also, to that verse that you posted, it list a whole bunch of crimes that people frankly don't even try to prevent, like drinking and adultery. It doesn't say anything about preventing other people from doing the things listed, it's just saying that the people that do do them will go to hell.

[Criticalxhit]

"don't care whether they inherit the Kingdom of God" as in atheist... not really the same thing though. Unclear, my bad. If I started quoting the Bible, it might have gone overboard.
However, there is one popular story... Essentially, an angel visited Job, and when the citizens of Sodom realized that he was accepting Job's hospitalty and staying over, they demanded that they bring out the visitor so that they could rape him, even though they too were men. To make a long story short, everyone but Job's family perished at the hand of God. Unfortunately The wife looked back at the destruction of Sodom (the aforementioned city) and became a "pillar of salt"... but that definitely doesn't apply to nowadays, it more applies to how God feels about about homosexuality.

[Phunkie]

On the whole incest topic...

I really believe that two people who can legally consent should be allowed to marry. I mean, it's weird, but...

If they love each other, who am I to say it's wrong?

Keyword: legally consent.

Animals can't legally consent.
Kids can't legally consent.
Two adults, even if they were cousins, can legally consent.


Gay people should be able to get married.

[Laconicus]

On the whole incest topic...

I really believe that two people who can legally consent should be allowed to marry. I mean, it's weird, but...

If they love each other, who am I to say it's wrong?

Keyword: legally consent.

Animals can't legally consent.
Kids can't legally consent.
Two adults, even if they were cousins, can legally consent.


Gay people should be able to get married.That's a really good idea. As for the whole incest topic, I don't care about them marrying per se, but there's an extremely high risk of have mutated children relative to "normal" marriages, so I can't fully support it. Gay marriage on the other hand doesn't produce children at all, which is why I can support it.

If cousins married and the dude got a vasectomy I'd be all for it though...

[Phunkie]

That's a really good idea. As for the whole incest topic, I don't care about them marrying per se, but there's an extremely high risk of have mutated children relative to "normal" marriages, so I can't fully support it. Gay marriage on the other hand doesn't produce children at all, which is why I can support it.

If cousins married and the dude got a vasectomy I'd be all for it though...

You are right and it sucks for the high-risk of mutations prevalent for the offspring of such couples.

If there was no risk, I'd be 110% percent for it.

Just like I support young people marrying elderly folks.

It's all love, man.

I'm all for it.

[Trigger]

Multiple things wrong with the following post.


I fully support it. Even though I do find the thought of it kinda gross lol

1. It's been scientifically shown that almost all homosexuals were born that way. Only a small percentage chose to be that way. Why would you discriminate against someone because they were born differently than you? Honestly, that's no different than being racist or sexist.

2. Homosexuals can't have kids (unless they adopted or went to a sperm bank). This is great considering that humans are heavily overpopulated. Homosexuality can actually save the Earth by preventing every square inch of land from being covered by humans >___> Plus, it's plain economically better for countries to have low population growth. The closer you get to zero population growth, the better. As far as I know Russia is the only country with a declining population (actually there may be a couple more, I don't remember), so homosexuality would economically benefit any country but Russia (etc.).

3. Why is homosexuality such a big deal? I'll tell you why. Because of religion. I can't say anything about other religions because I don't know about them, but I can tell you this about Christianity. In the Bible it says not to practice homosexuality. It also says not to lie or have bad thoughts. Don't even tell me that you don't do either of those. (*From a Christian perspective,*) God gave us free will. Who are you to prevent people from having the freedom to sin?

1. Just because someone was "born" a certain way does not make it right to live that way. By the same logic, you would also say that the scientific studies which prove the existence of an "alcoholic gene" which gives certain people a tendency to become alcoholics gives them a right to be alcoholics and even makes it permissible or acceptable. This is a question of morals, not science.


2. I don't know where you read that "humans are overpopulating the planet", but it's patently false. The vast majority of industrialized nations are experiencing constant or DECREASING populations, and not because of homosexual relationships, but rather due to the increased pace of life leaving less time for children, the availability of birth control, and the widespread use of abortion. It is the third-world countries that are multiplying their populations by leaps and bounds, because more children = more labor.


3. I'll be speaking here as a Baptist, because I was raised as one and still hold to many tenets of the faith. I understand the abhorrence of homosexuality, and it's valid according to the Scriptures, and personally I'm against homosexual relationships, but I'm not going to march in some protest rally holding a sign that reads "God Hates Homosexuals" (as true as that might be according to the faith I hold to). There is a difference between personal conviction and public denouncement. (I do wish people would stop throwing the word "homophobia" around at everyone who even hints at disapproving. I have a right to disapprove just like they have a right to approve and practice it.)

God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD. I can choose to rob the bank, but just because I CAN does not mean it's RIGHT to do so. Again, this is strictly about morals and convictions, not science and logic. According to science and logic it is perfectly "normal" for some human beings to have a tendency to be attracted to the same gender. This is not debatable. What is debatable is whether or not it should be accepted.

And before someone says "but whatever is normal should be accepted", let me remind you that society itself is abnormal. It is an invention of humanity to prevent people from doing whatever they feel like doing and promote personal safety. It is intended to bring equality to humans instead of forcing us to live by "survival of the fittest" (which is truly "normal").




Like Osayidan said, marriage is based on religion, so obviously the church would object to a desecration of an ancient sacred ritual, for the sake of accepting what the majority of the society wants. One thing I , and many other Christians find ridiculous, is that even though the church has been suppressed for many eras now, people become so offended when confronted by Christianity, when the Gay Pride Parade marches freely through Toronto. At my High School, I didn't even know there was a Christian club, because they are prohibited to post things without the principal's permission, and even worse, the club is only allowed ~2 announcements per year. Of course, the Gay/Straight alliance gladly posts things around the school, hands out pencils, and announces meetings whenever possible. And the Christian community aren't supposed to take offense this?

Amen, and amen. I've often wondered myself how people can preach "tolerance, tolerance!" while simultaneously being extremely antagonistic toward any form of Christianity they find. "Separation of church and state" only runs as deep as "traditional Christian values", it would seem.

It all boils down to this simple question: if I'm intolerant of your beliefs, would you tolerate my intolerance?

[Time]

God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD. I can choose to rob the bank, but just because I CAN does not mean it's RIGHT to do so. Again, this is strictly about morals and convictions, not science and logic. According to science and logic it is perfectly "normal" for some human beings to have a tendency to be attracted to the same gender. This is not debatable. What is debatable is whether or not it should be accepted.

sorry, I didnt read all of this thread , I think I missed a page or two, but I just want to post this here, sorry if Im missing your point, im tired and have a bit of a headache and this is my last post for the day. So from what I understand right there your saying that robbing a bank is bad because it is not the right thing to do based on morals, but following that logic, isn't same-sex marriage morally right to the people who support it? I mean I find it morally correct because I think that if people love each other they have every right to do whatever they want, its none of my business.

[Phunkie]

And before someone says "but whatever is normal should be accepted", let me remind you that society itself is abnormal. It is an invention of humanity to prevent people from doing whatever they feel like doing and promote personal safety. It is intended to bring equality to humans instead of forcing us to live by "survival of the fittest" (which is truly "normal").

But isn't religion also an invention of humanity to prevent people from doing what they feel like doing and promote personal safety? 8D


I honestly think that gay marriage should be accepted.

You're right, just because someone is born a certain way does not make it right.


I certainly wish I could control who I felt attracted and at what instance I do, but I can't. Just like you can't. A physical attraction is not something we should condemn. And we should allow people who are in love to get married, same sex included.

I do not understand why you are against gay relationships. (Homosexual's such a long word.) I mean, I know you were raised religiously. But sometimes I wonder if it's just not clear to some people that this isn't something to be ashamed of. I mean, maybe it's because I'm not religious that I don't see a problem with it whatsoever.

We should always support young love and people wanting to get married and wanting to be happy, no?

I'm glad that you're not one of those that will raise signs saying I HATE F*GS, but it still saddens me that you're against same-sex relationships. And it bothers me because I don't understand your reasons. I can't sympathize with your religious beliefs and that bothers me a lot.

I hate religion for that very reason.


It's silly to disapprove of gay relationships as a whole. You have no reason to. Religion doesn't cut it. It just doesn't.

For you, it might. But as a whole, it doesn't.

If I believed in a god, he would be all-loving. No but's.

You can't say one thing, then have exceptions. It's silly.

[Trigger]

sorry, I didnt read all of this thread , I think I missed a page or two, but I just want to post this here, sorry if Im missing your point, im tired and have a bit of a headache and this is my last post for the day. So from what I understand right there your saying that robbing a bank is bad because it is not the right thing to do based on morals, but following that logic, isn't same-sex marriage morally right to the people who support it? I mean I find it morally correct because I think that if people love each other they have every right to do whatever they want, its none of my business.

What is a moral, anyway? Who says what's right and what's wrong? Are morals inherently based in religion or would there still be a universal right and wrong in the absence of an almighty deity? These are the real questions at the heart of any moral debate, but addressing them would take an entire book (hell, I took a college course on the subject and barely scratched the surface), so I'll refrain from tackling those here.

Again, just because I believe I should be able to do something, and even if I am predisposed by genetics to desire it, it is not necessarily right. What is right depends to a certain extent on societal "norms". Our society was founded on principles directly derived from Christianity and the Bible itself ("all men are created equal" etc.). Therefore it is a societal "norm" for homosexuality to be looked down upon. If a majority of people accept homosexuality, it will become a societal norm in its own right (hence all the public rallies trying to garner support). What is right also depends to a lesser degree on how the individual feels, which is based on how the person was raised and what he has experienced in life -- we call this "conscience", the proverbial "voice" in each of us that lets us know if what we are doing is acceptable based on our prior experiences.

I'll freely confess that I've wanted to have some people killed before (we've all had fantasies of that nature, I'm sure). However, society says it's wrong to kill someone (laws and general public opinion), and my conscience says it's wrong to kill someone as well.

I am not making a case for the moral right or wrong of homosexuality because no one can make a case for global morality that binds all individuals without involving religion of some sort. I am only saying that FOR ME PERSONALLY, homosexuality is wrong. That's the only case based on morality that any rational individual can make. I am willing to tolerate the view that homosexuality is morally right, and I expect people to likewise tolerate my view that it's wrong. No hate, no fear, no awkward glances or angry stares. We're all people for crying out loud.




But isn't religion also an invention of humanity to prevent people from doing what they feel like doing and promote personal safety? 8D

I would say no, but that's a faith-based answer and not a logic-based answer, meaning I can't prove it any more than you can.

Why am I against homosexuality personally? It's the way I was raised and aligns with the faith I profess. My conscience is hard-wired that way, and there's not much I can do to change it, even if I wanted to. I will always be personally against homosexual relationships on the basis of my faith, if nothing else. That doesn't mean I hate gay people. That doesn't mean I shun them or avoid coming in contact with them. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be friendly! I'm still a human being and it's my duty to treat other people civilly, regardless of the differences in our beliefs, and the same holds true for every human being on the planet, religious or not.

[Phunkie]

I am not making a case for the moral right or wrong of homosexuality because no one can make a case for global morality that binds all individuals without involving religion of some sort. I am only saying that FOR ME PERSONALLY, homosexuality is wrong. That's the only case based on morality that any rational individual can make. I am willing to tolerate the view that homosexuality is morally right, and I expect people to likewise tolerate my view that it's wrong. No hate, no fear, no awkward glances or angry stares. We're all people for crying out loud.

Is it wrong for you because of the way you were raised?

[Mrlucky77]

Is it wrong for you because of the way you were raised?

I'm pretty sure he says it's wrong because that was how society was raised.

[Trigger]

I'm pretty sure he says it's wrong because that was how society was raised.

Yes, and I'm also saying that if society changes, so does the definition of "right".

[Phunkie]

Yes, and I'm also saying that if society changes, so does the definition of "right".

I wouldn't tolerate someone's racist remarks about someone else.

That's just wrong.

A few decades ago, they would have been tolerable, however.


But nobody ever taught me that racism was right. Likewise, nobody ever taught me that homosexuality was wrong.

So why does religion do it?

It makes me shake my head.

It's all about love, man.

[Mrlucky77]

Yes, and I'm also saying that if society changes, so does the definition of "right".

And the norm will be changed, therefore a different society (as in the populace).

[Trigger]

I wouldn't tolerate someone's racist remarks about someone else.

That's just wrong.

A few decades ago, they would have been tolerable, however.

So are you in favor of tolerance or are you not? You can't say "I'm a tolerant individual" out one side of your mouth and express intolerance of someone else's beliefs out the other side. That's called hypocrisy. =P

Like I said, if I'm intolerant of you, will you tolerate my intolerance like a more mature, more rational individual? If everyone were tolerant of those intolerant people, eventually they'd either learn to shut up (because no one pays any attention to their views) or change their views to be a little more accepting. If you really wanted to take it to the extreme, you could say that eventually "survival of the fittest" would kick in and the intolerant people would cease to exist altogether (dunno about you but I sure wouldn't want to make babies with someone who hates my lifestyle openly -- fewer intolerant people means fewer children being raised with intolerant viewpoints, which keeps repeating over time until there are none left).

You can't change everyone's beliefs, but you can get them all to be accepting of people with differing beliefs.

[Phunkie]

I am in favor of tolerance, of course. I mean, as much as I hate your beliefs, I'm gonna have to deal it, especially since I can't change them.

But you are right with what you last said:


You can't change everyone's beliefs, but you can get them all to be accepting of people with differing beliefs.

And I guess that's the best thing anyone can really do.

I don't hate you. I hate what you believe in, but I appreciate your tolerance.

I'm sorry I've overlooked that.

[Criticalxhit]

I wouldn't tolerate someone's racist remarks about someone else.

That's just wrong.

A few decades ago, they would have been tolerable, however.


But nobody ever taught me that racism was right. Likewise, nobody ever taught me that homosexuality was wrong.

So why does religion do it?

It makes me shake my head.

It's all about love, man.

Like Chocklit was saying earlier (sorry to use you as an example :P), he felt disgusted when he saw the Gay Pride parade; and most people feel the same way inwardly, I would think, because it's unnatural. However, today's society is slowly leaning towards accepting something homosexuality (Chocklit mentioned he feels ashamed for feeling disgusted @ 6). But like Trigger and I both said, God gives you a choice, so "So why does religion do it?" and if you think homosexuality is unnatural is based on faith and morals respectively - and no one but yourself is in the position to change either beliefs.

[Juno]

By that logic, gay Christians should either renounce their faith or stop being gay. Both choices sound ridiculous.

Christians are allowed to sin without renouncing their faith, and no sin is worse than any other sin. Furthermore, we've all sinned. That being said no Christian is any better than any non-Christian. As for how being a gay christian plays out it's kind of an unexplored topic. There's been so much prejudice that few have taken the time to actually find out. As far as I can tell they don't have to pretend to be hetero, but they do have to abstain from gay sex.


However, there is one popular story... Essentially, an angel visited Job, and when the citizens of Sodom realized that he was accepting Job's hospitalty and staying over, they demanded that they bring out the visitor so that they could rape him, even though they too were men. To make a long story short, everyone but Job's family perished at the hand of God. Unfortunately The wife looked back at the destruction of Sodom (the aforementioned city) and became a "pillar of salt"... but that definitely doesn't apply to nowadays, it more applies to how God feels about about homosexuality.

Whooooa there.

That wasn't Job, that was Lot. The account is found in Genesis 19 and the two cities were bound for destruction well before any mention of homosexuality. The angels were visiting as sort of a last chance for the towns; If they found 10 righteous people the destruction would have been stayed. Even if there wasn't any homosexuality going on the end result would have been the same. So...it's misleading to use that to portray how God feels about it.

[Hiccup]

Yes, and I'm also saying that if society changes, so does the definition of "right".

Society has been changing. In the next 50 years expect Same Sex marriage to be legal across the country and maybe Internationally (or at least starting to be). If "all men are created equal" why are gays discriminated against, they are equally as good/bad as a straight person.

If society starts favoring Same Sex marriage will you change your views on it?

[Crazed420]

I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.

If they want to do all the legal stuff, I'd support a civil union as opposed to marriage, since it doesn't involve any sort of religious nonsense. I'd say the same for any couple though, be they hetero or not.

This.

To add on...


My disclaimer: I'm NOT Christian I am Absurdist. There is a difference.


I am against same sex marrage in that marrage is religious. It does in fact mean something different than that of a civil union. To be married is to be joined under God not to sign a piece of paper. As per the base definition of marrage homosexuality in any form whether it be as innocent as bi-curious to flamboyant is an outrage under the eye of God. Thus for a marrage of such a couple is an even greater insult to his name.
I am not Christian but I will respect their right to believe this.

On the other hand.

A civil union I am all for. If you wish to be bonded by law and change your name with your partner of either gender you should have the right to do so. I however see it to be rather pointless myself. If you truly love someone I see little reason to have to sign a contract for it. Just live and love, who cares about all the excess. I gave my girlfriend a ring as a symbolic gesture that i was hers forever, and we both don't really care if we ever get some shiny piece of paper to prove we're a couple. If we ever choose to do so later down the line then hurrah we'll get some friends together and have a shin-dig and sign the pretty paper then celebrate. There is no need for God interfere with one's right to celebrate one's love for another.

For adoption I see no reason not to allow anyone without a criminal record or severe health problem to do so. Whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, transexual, whatever. If they are a law abiding civil human being they deserve the right to adopt in my mind. There is no level of discrimination that a child raised under a homosexual roof that could not be reached by some other means.

While I may not agree with what most religions state they have the right to do so. To say they don't and that i do is unjust.


Honestly they should abolish marriage as the mainstream form of courtship. Other religions get wed in their own special ceremonies some with different terms you just don't hear about them due to the major Christian fundamentals that North America has. We were fall founded by prudes that strictly followed either Catholicism or Christianity and our civilization from those 200+ years has evolved into a division of agnostic beliefs and christian. It would be best for us to remove religion from any form of law. Such things should never have been combined in the first place.

[Axx]

Who knows, unless a major backlash occurs against the 'progression of liberal society' (I don't want to use that term, as it has positive connotations and the 'converse' side carries negative connotations, when I really want to express the same idea but where both sides have completely neutral connotations, but there exists no suitable term to do so....continuing on)

a a few hundred years from now there may be no such things as a 'family' as children are raised communally (basically everybody raises everybody's kids together), thereby eliminating any need for existing relationship structures. The 'free love' movement of the what...60-70-80's, whichever one, comes to mind.

[Kyouria]

^ Whoa LOL, I'm reading a book in English: Brave New World where "everyone belongs to everyone else" (promiscuity).. Satirical piece but anyways--


I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.

If they want to do all the legal stuff, I'd support a civil union as opposed to marriage, since it doesn't involve any sort of religious nonsense. I'd say the same for any couple though, be they hetero or not.
I remember my friend once said marriage was an economic union. In that case, I don't see why same-sex couples can't get 'married'. Or a civil union, as you put it.

As much as I'm not against same-sex marriage, I would say I'm against same-sex couples raising kids.. The debate on same-sex marriage leads to more debates concerning their kids, location of the marriage (as I've heard some same-sex couples want to get married in churches), etc. @.@

[Phunkie]

People, there are such things are civil marriages. You go to City Hall or something and get married.

You are legally wed there. In the eyes of the law, not God.

If we can have legal marriages and religious marriages, we can have legal gay marriages.

I don't care if I'm not married in the eyes of God. I just want my title: "married." Not "united" (civil union).


The hell?

Religion doesn't own marriage.

[Justified]

God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD.

And before someone says "but whatever is normal should be accepted", let me remind you that society itself is abnormal. It is an invention of humanity to prevent people from doing whatever they feel like doing and promote personal safety. It is intended to bring equality to humans instead of forcing us to live by "survival of the fittest" (which is truly "normal").

It can be argued that the social contract is indeed natural. It's natural to want to look out for oneself, and the collaboration to build a governed society greatly increases a person's safety and productivity. More protection and more luxuries, it's an obvious choice to take society over a stick and some berries.

I don't get where the "natural things should be accepted" comes in though. Farting is natural, but I certainly don't want everybody running around farting in public.


I certainly wish I could control who I felt attracted and at what instance I do, but I can't. Just like you can't. A physical attraction is not something we should condemn. And we should allow people who are in love to get married, same sex included.

We should always support young love and people wanting to get married and wanting to be happy, no?

You can't say one thing, then have exceptions. It's silly.


I love this 12 year old girl and she loves me. I love my sister. I love both of them, and 5 other women. I want to marry them all, and they all consent to it.

Let me be a pedophile, incestuous, and polyandrous; there's nothing wrong with that. We should always support young love and people wanting to get married and wanting to be happy, no? You can't say one thing, then have exceptions. It's silly.


What is a moral, anyway? Who says what's right and what's wrong? Are morals inherently based in religion or would there still be a universal right and wrong in the absence of an almighty deity? These are the real questions at the heart of any moral debate, but addressing them would take an entire book (hell, I took a college course on the subject and barely scratched the surface), so I'll refrain from tackling those here.

For me, morality would be something like "the action a person should take so that, if everybody chose that same action, the outcome would be desirable." Morals are universal, and we are born with the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Whether or not we follow our morality is another issue. This is a mostly philosophical definition.

In this case, not allowing SSM is immoral. If gays were given the choice to make hetero marriages illegal we wouldn't want them to, and thus we shouldn't do it to them.

Personally, while I don't really approve of homosexuality (probably due to religious influence), I honestly don't care what they do. But, I don't really want to allow gay marriages either, because as stated before, marriages are mostly a religious ritual, and this goes against the religion.

Part of the problem lies in that non-religious people take over religious things and kind of twist them. Look at Christmas and Easter. They are religious holidays that have been adapted and marketed so that even atheists or other non-Christians celebrate it. Traditional marriage is the same way, it's even held in a church and run by a pastor, you can't exactly say it has nothing to do with religion.

[Phunkie]

I love this 12 year old girl and she loves me. I love my sister. I love both of them, and 5 other women. I want to marry them all, and they all consent to it.

Let me be a pedophile, incestuous, and polyandrous; there's nothing wrong with that. We should always support young love and people wanting to get married and wanting to be happy, no? You can't say one thing, then have exceptions. It's silly.

Oh gosh. I feel like people always use these same arguments.

"Oh, you wanna let gays marry? Why not let adults marry kids and have sex with animals too?"

There's a difference.

Marriage has been commonly between two people. In certain parts of the world, men have more than one wife, but that's a different story. Let's keep it between two people. I don't care if it's your sister. You love her? You should be able to marry her. Just know the possible complications in having children.

And I have been saying legally consensual throughout this whole thread. So that throws the pedophilia out the window.


You might ask, so why change this religious institution if it's always been between a man and a woman?

Well I'm not trying to change the religious institution.

I don't care if the Church will never marry gays. I just want my government (state or federal) to allow it.

They are the ones who regulate marriage laws, not the Pope, not the Church.

And they have all the power to change them.


I think it's unfair to deny marriage to two, legally consenting individuals. Not pedophiles, not polygamists, but two people who love each other and just want to get married.

There should be no exceptions there.

Like I said, religion isn't the sole owner of marriage.

[Cide]

there are a startling amount of logical fallacies, slippery slopes, and homophobia up in this thread, yo.

that being said, if i wanna marry my lady i should damn well be able to but arguing this **** is like beating a dead horse by now. no one is going to change anyone's opinion on it on an internet forum, and especially not on a mabinogi fansite.

silly debate is silly.

edit: spelling is cool

[Justified]

Marriage has been commonly between two people. In certain parts of the world, men have more than one wife, but that's a different story. Let's keep it between two people. I don't care if it's your sister. You love her? You should be able to marry her. Just know the possible complications in having children.

And I have been saying legally consensual throughout this whole thread. So that throws the pedophilia out the window.

I don't care if the Church will never marry gays. I just want my government (state or federal) to allow it.

I think it's unfair to deny marriage to two, legally consenting individuals. Not pedophiles, not polygamists, but two people who love each other and just want to get married.

There should be no exceptions there.

Detail helps everything, I can't really argue with you now that you've elaborated your points.

The incest thing was a key thing for me, seeing as how the argument for SSM really does apply for incest as much as they try to deny/ignore it, and yet nobody was willing to take up the stance for that. To me, they're sort of the same thing. Uncommon relationship between two people, both having serious flaws over a traditional couple.
However, that doesn't answer the question for people who approve of SSM and yet disapprove of incest.

Also, why is polygamy illegal?
You state that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it is illegal, but...

the Supreme Court based its rejection of polygamy on the claim that the United States is a Christian nation. In the nineteenth century, it was a legal commonplace to claim that Christianity was part of the common law of the United States. It was only in the past fifty years or so that this claim has been seriously challenged. Today, no court would declare that America is a Christian nation.

You said screw religion, so now polygamy should be allowed. Assuming each relationship is consensual, would you now be okay with polygamy?
If yes, doesn't that mean that the legality of marriage between unique pairings is slightly arbitrary?

Also, interesting tidbit...

William Galston, in Public Matters, notes that the Defense of Marriage Act, which was written to prohibit a federal recognition of same-sex marriages, specifies that legal marriage joins one man and one woman. If the law is challenged successfully, both the man and woman part, and the one and one part, could be rejected.

Gruntled Center: Why, Exactly, is Polygamy Illegal? (http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-exactly-is-polygamy-illegal.html)

[Syrphid]

So are you in favor of tolerance or are you not? You can't say "I'm a tolerant individual" out one side of your mouth and express intolerance of someone else's beliefs out the other side. That's called hypocrisy. =P

Like I said, if I'm intolerant of you, will you tolerate my intolerance like a more mature, more rational individual? If everyone were tolerant of those intolerant people, eventually they'd either learn to shut up (because no one pays any attention to their views) or change their views to be a little more accepting. If you really wanted to take it to the extreme, you could say that eventually "survival of the fittest" would kick in and the intolerant people would cease to exist altogether (dunno about you but I sure wouldn't want to make babies with someone who hates my lifestyle openly -- fewer intolerant people means fewer children being raised with intolerant viewpoints, which keeps repeating over time until there are none left).

You can't change everyone's beliefs, but you can get them all to be accepting of people with differing beliefs.

I am intolerant of intolerance. Being open-minded does not mean you have to accept other people's beliefs, it just means you shouldn't reject them offhand.

I am not tolerant of racism, hate, violence, xenophobia, homophobia, rape, murder, stealing, cheating, etc. Are you?


Like Chocklit was saying earlier (sorry to use you as an example :P), he felt disgusted when he saw the Gay Pride parade; and most people feel the same way inwardly, I would think, because it's unnatural. However, today's society is slowly leaning towards accepting something homosexuality (Chocklit mentioned he feels ashamed for feeling disgusted @ 6). But like Trigger and I both said, God gives you a choice, so "So why does religion do it?" and if you think homosexuality is unnatural is based on faith and morals respectively - and no one but yourself is in the position to change either beliefs.

I am uncomfortable around black people, because in all of my life I have personally known 2. This does not mean it is ok that I am uncomfortable around them.

In any event, natural is a meaningless and useless concept.


God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD. I can choose to rob the bank, but just because I CAN does not mean it's RIGHT to do so. Again, this is strictly about morals and convictions, not science and logic. According to science and logic it is perfectly "normal" for some human beings to have a tendency to be attracted to the same gender. This is not debatable. What is debatable is whether or not it should be accepted.

If God is just and fair, and if love is such a great, powerful and integral part of our lives, given to us by just and fair God Himself, why does he choose to damn 10% of the population to choose between sin and love?

Can you imagine suddenly becoming homosexual? What would that do to your life and your faith, and why would God allow that to happen to a human being, his own beloved creation?

1) God randomly hates 10% of the population and likes to see them suffer, torn between happiness and faith, while allowing the other 90% of the population happiness AND faith. God is not just or fair.

2) God doesn't disapprove of homosexuality. You're wrong.

3) Whole ****load of science concerning the genetic and childhood basis of homosexuality is wrong. Prove it.

Pick your poison.

[Justified]

If God is just and fair, and if love is such a great, powerful and integral part of our lives, given to us by just and fair God Himself, why does he choose to damn 10% of the population to choose between sin and love?

Can you imagine suddenly becoming homosexual? What would that do to your life and your faith, and why would God allow that to happen to a human being, his own beloved creation?

1) God randomly hates 10% of the population and likes to see them suffer, torn between happiness and faith, while allowing the other 90% of the population happiness AND faith. God is not just or fair.

I think Juno's post already addressed that.


Christians are allowed to sin without renouncing their faith, and no sin is worse than any other sin. Furthermore, we've all sinned. That being said no Christian is any better than any non-Christian. As for how being a gay christian plays out it's kind of an unexplored topic. There's been so much prejudice that few have taken the time to actually find out. As far as I can tell they don't have to pretend to be hetero, but they do have to abstain from gay sex.


Anyways, you're asking staple atheism questions that have really stalemated in the past. The question of God's benevolence has had multiple responses.

- If there was no bad then conversely there's no good, since bad is basically just something that is not good or the opposite of good.
- God gave us free will, if we didn't have the ability to choose our actions (including sin), then we wouldn't really be free.
- God created the best possible world. The best of worlds is one that would actualize as many possible events within its time span, including events that are less favorable. (I think it was Bacon who said that? Can't remember for sure.)

Saying that everything should be all peachy all the time doesn't work, even with a perfect god. Logically, perfection is just impossible because improving in one area (ie. morality) will take away from another area (ie. freedom).

[Syrphid]

Anyways, you're asking staple atheism questions that have really stalemated in the past. The question of God's benevolence has had multiple responses.

- If there was no bad then conversely there's no good, since bad is basically just something that is not good or the opposite of good.
- God gave us free will, if we didn't have the ability to choose our actions (including sin), then we wouldn't really be free.
- God created the best possible world. The best of worlds is one that would actualize as many possible events within its time span, including events that are less favorable. (I think it was Bacon who said that? Can't remember for sure.)

Saying that everything should be all peachy all the time doesn't work, even with a perfect god. Logically, perfection is just impossible because improving in one area (ie. morality) will take away from another area (ie. freedom).

I don't think freedom of choice comes into play here, since some people are free to love whom they want, but others are not.

I can understand people being given different minds, bodies, families, hobbies, places of birth. A little less of injuries, diseases, and evildoings. But how could God allow homosexuality to occur, and yet not accept it? Love is such a huge part of life, that for some people to have sexual urges but not be allowed to express them as others can just seems wrong.

It makes more sense that God would be accepting of homosexuality, just as He is accepting of the human celebration of other forms of diversity.

[Justified]

I don't think freedom of choice comes into play here, since some people are free to love whom they want, but others are not.

I can understand people being given different minds, bodies, families, hobbies, places of birth. A little less of injuries, diseases, and evildoings. But how could God allow homosexuality to occur, and yet not accept it? Love is such a huge part of life, that for some people to have sexual urges but not be allowed to express them as others can just seems wrong.

It makes more sense that God would be accepting of homosexuality, just as He is accepting of the human celebration of other forms of diversity.

But everybody actually is free to love whomever they want. If we didn't have that freedom then homosexuals would not exist at all, therefore, their presence alone is enough to say that we do. The fact that God does not accept something does not mean we do not have the freedom to do so - we have the freedom to sin.
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

I don't get your second point. You understand that He allows evildoings but does not accept them, but do not understand that He allows homosexuality but does not accept it?

[Phunkie]

However, that doesn't answer the question for people who approve of SSM and yet disapprove of incest.

I think that it's because of the way incest is depicted in this country. It's never two people in love. On the contrary, it's almost always an uncle raping his nephew or a stepfather molesting his stepdaughter.

Incest (when mentioned) always has that bad connotation to it, as did gay sexual relationships back then. (Sodomy, etc.)


Also, why is polygamy illegal?
You state that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it is illegal, but...

I actually didn't state that. However, I do not encourage polygamy. I just don't think it's the right way to form a family and raise kids.

We always think of there being two parents and a few kids. And I'd like to keep the family structure like that.

I do not think that substituting a Mom and a Dad for two Dads or two Moms destroys the idea of a family. Not at all.

To me, polygamy is more about the sex rather than the love.

[Axx]

To me, polygamy is more about the sex rather than the love.

If it was only about the sex, there'd be no reason to even attempt a permanent union. Plenty of men and women have multiple sexual partners.

[Kyouria]

When I was little, I attended church every Sunday with my family but I NEVER ever learned that same-sex marriage was prohibited in the bible. @.@

[Rime]

"Two people who love each other should be able to marry. It doesn't affect me, why should I stop them?"
That is the prevalent argument supporting same-sex marriage. It could also apply to incest. Yet, the common individual will only support same-sex marriage and will gag when incest comes up. You can't exactly back one proposition with a statement that is completely ignored for another.

How is incest "naturally" deemed a crime? How come gay marriage criminality isn't "natural"? Couldn't the criminality be natural and just coincidentally be supported by religion? What defines natural crime and unnatural crime? Incest gets deemed illegal just because it rarely happens? That's not exactly fair.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you stand? By the looks of it you're stating mostly facts and I can't really tell what your actual opinions are.

And feel free to leave out Freudian terms, I don't care much for those.

I used "naturally" and "unnaturally" as adjectives to describe how people construe their attitude towards incest and homosexuality, but I guess that it was a poor choice of words (If you want to duke it out in terms of semantics though, then almost none of the things that humans do is considered "natural," but let's not go there. Too tedious.). Granted, my argument isn't exactly water-tight, but I kept it that way so that someone might challenge it and inevitably lead the argument away from being a clash of moral extremes. Guess it worked, kinda. You guys are now arguing about establishmentarianism using moral extremes lol.

To be honest, I'm too indifferent about the whole subject to pick sides, or even care for the matter. People tend to argue about homosexuality in such a way that little or no progress is made afterward, and the fact that people are generally unmoved by these debates has me thinking that they're only skewing hard facts to accommodate their own beliefs (the same way Republicans skew real science and use pseudoscience to further their own agendas, but that's a different topic. Just felt the need to make a potshot). It's great as a way to drag on debates, but not so much a method of learning. Ultimately, it's not worth my while.


Christians are allowed to sin without renouncing their faith, and no sin is worse than any other sin. Furthermore, we've all sinned. That being said no Christian is any better than any non-Christian. As for how being a gay christian plays out it's kind of an unexplored topic. There's been so much prejudice that few have taken the time to actually find out. As far as I can tell they don't have to pretend to be hetero, but they do have to abstain from gay sex.

I'm not going to challenge you on the interpretations of the bible since I'd inevitably lose, but doesn't the bible state that God forgives sinning if the sinner tries his/her best not to commit the same sin again? What is a person's sin if he/she is gay? Is gay sex the sin or the wanting to commit gay sex, or is it the love between two same gender people? I don't feel that I'll be able to respond to this without first figuring these basic technicalities out.


If it was only about the sex, there'd be no reason to even attempt a permanent union. Plenty of men and women have multiple sexual partners.

I always thought permanent unions were more for the sake of the child. I mean, some people who don't love each other anymore choose to stay married for the sake of their kids. I guess it might be a parental instinct, but I have no references to support any such assumptions.

[Chiri]

I always thought permanent unions were more for the sake of the child. I mean, some people who don't love each other anymore choose to stay married for the sake of their kids. I guess it might be a parental instinct, but I have no references to support any such assumptions.

From my sociology 101 class~
Permanent unions are supposedly good for society in general, since it generally results in people settling down/getting stable jobs/socializing kids. Also, both individuals make less risky decisions and life expectancy goes up.

Because of these benefits, government gives benefits to married couples-- since they're helpful for maintaining status quo and boost economy.


Personally, I don't think the gender/sex of the couple matters, if they are dedicated to each other and follow the general lifestyle expected of married couples.

[Juno]

When I was little, I attended church every Sunday with my family but I NEVER ever learned that same-sex marriage was prohibited in the bible. @.@

It's not even mentioned iirc.


I'm not going to challenge you on the interpretations of the bible since I'd inevitably lose, but doesn't the bible state that God forgives sinning if the sinner tries his/her best not to commit the same sin again? What is a person's sin if he/she is gay? Is gay sex the sin or the wanting to commit gay sex, or is it the love between two same gender people? I don't feel that I'll be able to respond to this without first figuring these basic technicalities out.

I'll do what I can but keep in mind that I still have a lot to learn in this area.

The sin stems from the immoral sexual practice. This would include the act and lust pertaining to the same. One can be gay and fall in love and live happily ever after (not sure on marriage) without sinning. It's only that specific physical manifestation that is prohibited. I still need to check the Hebrew sources to get the exact meanings of the words translated to 'homosexual' though.

It's similar to someone practicing a martial art. It's not a sin to train, but if you go whack some people for the lulz that is a sin.

[Arendel]

First off, if you're using religion as the basis of your argument against homosexuality, consider that the Bible might not actually condemn it the way it's commonly believed to (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian). Of particular note in this article are the commonly cited passages (the story of Sodom, 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc.) that have been used in this very thread as the basis of the anti-gay (for lack of a better word) argument. The rest is still well worth reading, however. You may disagree with the author's interpretations of the Bible, but it's something to think about before coming to your own conclusions.

With that said, I'm going to backtrack a little bit here.


In short...
Anal sex has a 500% chance of contracting HIV as opposed to no anal sex. Homosexuals perform anal, therefore it is bad.
70% of HIV in Canada in 6/2004 was homosexual men. Obvious bad thing is obvious.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are somewhat related. According to a survey (?) 3% of the total population is homosexual, but 25% of the pedophilia population is homosexual. Meaning, proportionally, there are less heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones. Allowing homosexuality would be somewhat endorsing pedophilia.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Allowing same-sex marriage = encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS? Or are you making a case against homosexuality in general just because common sexual practices among gays are riskier than vaginal sex between heterosexual couples? By that logic, why allow any non-vaginal intercourse - or even intercourse at all - given the risk of HIV transmission? It's perfectly possible that 1) the homosexual couple in question does not practice anal sex, 2) neither partner in the couple has HIV, and 3) the partners are committed exclusively to each other over the course of their relationship.

These are all hypotheticals, of course, but the article you linked makes many clearly one-sided and even erroneous statements without any regard for these possibilities. For one, it says that diseases such as herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, and HPV are "rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population" - a clearly false statement. It also states that anal intercourse has "spread" to the heterosexual community, implying that such intercourse is a recent development originating from homosexuals, and suggests that increased STD transmission would necessarily be the result of legalizing same-sex marriage without considering the possibility that people could just keep going about the same habits regardless. The brief also doesn't seem to account for whether the intercourse was protected or not.

I'm also not sure where you're going with linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Pedophilia is attraction to a minor. Pedophilia may supposedly have a higher incidence in homosexual populations, but condoning one practice does not inevitably mean condoning the other. By that logic, it would be just as easy to say that encouraging heterosexuality would be "somewhat endorsing pedophilia" simply because there is some percentage of people in the population who are heterosexual and pedophiliac.


1. Just because someone was "born" a certain way does not make it right to live that way. By the same logic, you would also say that the scientific studies which prove the existence of an "alcoholic gene" which gives certain people a tendency to become alcoholics gives them a right to be alcoholics and even makes it permissible or acceptable. This is a question of morals, not science.

God did give us free will, the capacity to make our own choices as we please. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD. I can choose to rob the bank, but just because I CAN does not mean it's RIGHT to do so. Again, this is strictly about morals and convictions, not science and logic. According to science and logic it is perfectly "normal" for some human beings to have a tendency to be attracted to the same gender. This is not debatable. What is debatable is whether or not it should be accepted.
Except alcoholism has clearly negative effects on both the alcoholic and society. Consumption of alcohol impairs judgment, which can necessarily lead to reckless or even criminal behavior if one consumes more than he or she can tolerate. If we are talking about an intimate relationship between two consenting parties of the same sex, the consequences of permitting it, if any, are far less dire than those of allowing alcoholism, regardless of whether or not one is predisposed to becoming alcoholic. Alcoholism can lead directly to burglary, assault, and death of either the alcoholic due to any of various physical effects of alcohol poisoning, or other people through murder or drunk driving resulting from impaired mental capacity. What does homosexual behavior have that matches up to the gravity of this? You can't really compare sexual attraction to substance abuse. Same thing with regard to bank robbery vs. homosexuality.

Anyway, I think that's about all I have to say regarding the matter. I'd add more, but debates like these never seem to change anyone's minds and are hard to argue simply because it's one person's definition of morals against another's.

[Trigger]

I am intolerant of intolerance. Being open-minded does not mean you have to accept other people's beliefs, it just means you shouldn't reject them offhand.

I am not tolerant of racism, hate, violence, xenophobia, homophobia, rape, murder, stealing, cheating, etc. Are you?

And thus you have created one of the greatest oxymorons in the history of debate. It's like saying "There is no truth." In saying that, I have stated what I believe to be true, and thus have refuted my own statement. By the same token, being intolerant of intolerance means YOU ARE INTOLERANT OF YOURSELF.

The whole "tolerance" issue bring with it the caveat that people -- not some, not most, but ALL people -- abide by Justified's definition of morality, "if everyone chose the same action, the result would be desirable." This is obviously not possible on a global scale, but it is possible between individuals and even communities.



Moving forward from there...

"Why would God *insert action here*?" How can anyone presume to speak for the actions of a being that neither you nor I nor anyone else on this mortal plane can possibly hope to understand? I don't know why God does anything any more than you do, assuming that there is such a being. Remember, if there is a God, and if he did in fact create the universe, then he is not bound by the laws of the universe, including time, because he was obviously outside the boundaries of the universe when he created it (and do recall Einstein's relativity, space and time are inherently linked). A being that transcends time and space transcends the human capacity of understanding, because all we know is time and space.

According to the Bible, God placed a "thorn" or a bodily weakness in one of his most trusted followers, not because he hated him, but because he wanted to test his ability to overcome difficulty and make him grow stronger through it. If we are going to tread religious ground here by involving God in the discussion, we cannot off-handedly assume that God hates someone just because they are born a certain way or have certain traits. None of us are perfect. We could argue that God hates every human being on the planet because we all have defects.

"God is love" could not be more true, but remember -- true love is more than just playing sugar daddy. True love is also just. If I truly love someone I will want them to do what is best for them, even if that requires rebuke or punishment (raising children is the best metaphor here and is used in the Bible countless times to illustrate this point). Allowing a person I "love" to go out and ruin their life without warning them or flat-out telling them not to shows that I really didn't care that much in the first place. The same applies to God, according to Scripture.


As for the comparison of alcoholism vs. homosexuality, I knew someone would have to poke a hole in the metaphor, and yes, I know it's there. I am merely attempting to draw a parallel between two "conditions" that are genetically influenced. Just because I feel inclined to drink does not mean that I should -- I need a better reason. Just because I feel inclined to have sex with someone of the same gender does not mean that I should -- I need a better reason. "Just because I feel like it" is not a good reason to do anything.

[Justified]

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Allowing same-sex marriage = encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS? Or are you making a case against homosexuality in general just because common sexual practices among gays are riskier than vaginal sex between heterosexual couples?

People said SSM is okay but incest isn't, because incest poses an increased chance for birth abnormalities. Yet, SSM has an increased chance for STDs. I was merely pointing out that the people who are in favor of SSM use reasons that arbitrarily apply only to SSM, and not incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc, even though there's nothing really distinguishing them. Phunkie has already responded to that though.


I'm also not sure where you're going with linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Pedophilia is attraction to a minor. Pedophilia may supposedly have a higher incidence in homosexual populations, but condoning one practice does not inevitably mean condoning the other. By that logic, it would be just as easy to say that encouraging heterosexuality would be "somewhat endorsing pedophilia" simply because there is some percentage of people in the population who are heterosexual and pedophiliac.

The last part doesn't say that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same, but that they are closely related. Actually now that you point it out, the numbers do look biased. 3 out of 100 people are homosexual, but 25 out of 100 pedophiles are homosexual - that is about 7 times more than there should be (which is the relation), but the article states 10-25 times more than expected (the bias).
I think its similar to guns and killing. Guns are a lifestyle choice meant to promote safety, and yet they are sometimes used for violence. Condoning the possession of guns (reasonable) for safety does not condone murder (unreasonable), yet murder will obviously increase as a side-effect. The same goes for homosexuality (reasonable..?) and pedophilia (unreasonable).

Also note that I'm not stating anything as a support for anti-SSM, but am just trying to point out inconsistencies in the SSM statements. They're kind of the same thing, but I don't really support either - it's just that I can understand the religion argument a whole lot better than I can the "true love prevails!" argument.

[Rime]

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Allowing same-sex marriage = encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS? Or are you making a case against homosexuality in general just because common sexual practices among gays are riskier than vaginal sex between heterosexual couples? By that logic, why allow any non-vaginal intercourse - or even intercourse at all - given the risk of HIV transmission? It's perfectly possible that 1) the homosexual couple in question does not practice anal sex, 2) neither partner in the couple has HIV, and 3) the partners are committed exclusively to each other over the course of their relationship.

Logically speaking, unions between two people promote exclusivity and suppresses promiscuity. I've no resources on this, but it might be a something to look into.


These are all hypotheticals, of course, but the article you linked makes many clearly one-sided and even erroneous statements without any regard for these possibilities. For one, it says that diseases such as herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, and HPV are "rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population" - a clearly false statement. It also states that anal intercourse has "spread" to the heterosexual community, implying that such intercourse is a recent development originating from homosexuals, and suggests that increased STD transmission would necessarily be the result of legalizing same-sex marriage without considering the possibility that people could just keep going about the same habits regardless. The brief also doesn't seem to account for whether the intercourse was protected or not.

I'm also not sure where you're going with linking homosexuality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. Pedophilia is attraction to a minor. Pedophilia may supposedly have a higher incidence in homosexual populations, but condoning one practice does not inevitably mean condoning the other. By that logic, it would be just as easy to say that encouraging heterosexuality would be "somewhat endorsing pedophilia" simply because there is some percentage of people in the population who are heterosexual and pedophiliac.

One of the dangers to the act of randomly citing internet resources is the fact that many of the resources available on the internet are not credible. I've seen generous use of statistical data in this topic, and as a point of precaution, I advise anyone who thinks of using it to always always check how the data was collected. Biased distribution and or design of surveys and the like can very easily skew results. For instance, one very anti-homosexual statistician always has the ability to send surveys mostly to homosexuals in areas where the usage of condoms was shown to be low. In this case, there wouldn't be the possibility of officially publishing the article due to ethical reason, but there's no stopping the statistician from posting it online as an unofficial survey.

That said I don't think the numbers that Justified used was very representative of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. There are too many variables to compare the two within in a single survey. Some concerns come to mind when assessing the validity of those numbers. Are openly homosexual men, who have come to terms with their homosexuality, more likely to admit to pedophilia? Are straight men less likely to admit to their own pedophilia? If there is a difference in report rate, does this imply that homosexual men are more likely to be pedophiles or does it imply that homosexual men are more likely to admit to it? Is there a significant difference to the two? Take note that admitting that you are sexually attracted children doesn't mean that you will invariably have sex with them.

[Juno]

Very nice link Arus, I'm still in the middle of reading it but you have no idea how glad I am you posted that. I'd never even heard of this guy before .-.

[Justified]

That said I don't think the numbers that Justified used was very representative of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. There are too many variables to compare the two within in a single survey. Some concerns come to mind when assessing the validity of those numbers.

I like to give the source the benefit of the doubt. D:
But surveys by nature don't really prove anything. There's always the chance that people aren't honest with their answers, that there's jerks who answer a certain way to skew the results, that people just fill them out to win a free car (or NX!), that the proctors mail them out to selective areas, etc.
Assuming it was a voluntary and anonymous survey though, I think it'd lean at least somewhat towards real figures - I don't think many people would be scared of saying something if there was no way of knowing who's answers are who's. I just assume the best case scenario, because there's still a possibility it's true and (if it's not) the people on the other side of the argument can also pull their own biased survey to negate mine.

[Rime]

I like to give the source the benefit of the doubt. D:
But surveys by nature don't really prove anything. There's always the chance that people aren't honest with their answers, that there's jerks who answer a certain way to skew the results, that people just fill them out to win a free car (or NX!), that the proctors mail them out to selective areas, etc.
Assuming it was a voluntary and anonymous survey though, I think it'd lean at least somewhat towards real figures - I don't think many people would be scared of saying something if there was no way of knowing who's answers are who's. I just assume the best case scenario, because there's still a possibility it's true and (if it's not) the people on the other side of the argument can also pull their own biased survey to negate mine.

Facts don't exactly negate each other, and using unaccredited resources ruins your own credibility. Regardless of whatever the opposition uses, it's always best to fact check for your own sake.

As for the integrity of the survey system, the anonymity helps to assure that most answers are honest, and random distribution helps to take out demographics as a factor to the results, but there are always limits even to survey results that have been collected honestly. A lot of the complication lies in either the designing the survey or the interpretation of its results. In general, these the number of complications rise as the number of variables increase, and sometimes it's simply hard to gather data for certain topics. For example, the link between homosexuality and pedophilia is an inherently difficult subject to gather data on because there are many underlying factors that cause a person to realize either of the two preferences. Since the data you used didn't even mention these limitations, I could only conclude that the data shouldn't be viewed in the way it presents itself.

[Kyouria]

First off, if you're using religion as the basis of your argument against homosexuality, consider that the Bible might not actually condemn it the way it's commonly believed to (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian).

Wow.. You learn something new everyday. I didn't read the entire article but there are so many points brought up that I wonder whether people who are against same-sex marriage (because of religious views) know about it (i.e. sexual practices most would probably disagree with).

@_@

[Syrphid]

And thus you have created one of the greatest oxymorons in the history of debate. It's like saying "There is no truth." In saying that, I have stated what I believe to be true, and thus have refuted my own statement. By the same token, being intolerant of intolerance means YOU ARE INTOLERANT OF YOURSELF.

The whole "tolerance" issue bring with it the caveat that people -- not some, not most, but ALL people -- abide by Justified's definition of morality, "if everyone chose the same action, the result would be desirable." This is obviously not possible on a global scale, but it is possible between individuals and even communities.



Moving forward from there...

"Why would God *insert action here*?" How can anyone presume to speak for the actions of a being that neither you nor I nor anyone else on this mortal plane can possibly hope to understand? I don't know why God does anything any more than you do, assuming that there is such a being. Remember, if there is a God, and if he did in fact create the universe, then he is not bound by the laws of the universe, including time, because he was obviously outside the boundaries of the universe when he created it (and do recall Einstein's relativity, space and time are inherently linked). A being that transcends time and space transcends the human capacity of understanding, because all we know is time and space.

According to the Bible, God placed a "thorn" or a bodily weakness in one of his most trusted followers, not because he hated him, but because he wanted to test his ability to overcome difficulty and make him grow stronger through it. If we are going to tread religious ground here by involving God in the discussion, we cannot off-handedly assume that God hates someone just because they are born a certain way or have certain traits. None of us are perfect. We could argue that God hates every human being on the planet because we all have defects.

"God is love" could not be more true, but remember -- true love is more than just playing sugar daddy. True love is also just. If I truly love someone I will want them to do what is best for them, even if that requires rebuke or punishment (raising children is the best metaphor here and is used in the Bible countless times to illustrate this point). Allowing a person I "love" to go out and ruin their life without warning them or flat-out telling them not to shows that I really didn't care that much in the first place. The same applies to God, according to Scripture.


As for the comparison of alcoholism vs. homosexuality, I knew someone would have to poke a hole in the metaphor, and yes, I know it's there. I am merely attempting to draw a parallel between two "conditions" that are genetically influenced. Just because I feel inclined to drink does not mean that I should -- I need a better reason. Just because I feel inclined to have sex with someone of the same gender does not mean that I should -- I need a better reason. "Just because I feel like it" is not a good reason to do anything.

I should prolly reread what I write. Kindly strike out the first paragraph. My point that open-mindedness does not imply open acceptance stands nonetheless.

Your assertion, that God transcends human understanding and thus is immune to logic, can be used to support anything, and only serves as a pretty circular argument. It's good that you do not rest your argument on that. I will ignore it.

A thorn is just a thorn. We all get them, no biggie. They're just annoying. Love is hardly a thorn. It's the crowning experience of earthly life. Why would God give all of us life, but screw up the biggest thing of it, for billions of people?


Anyways, you're asking staple atheism questions that have really stalemated in the past. The question of God's benevolence has had multiple responses.

- If there was no bad then conversely there's no good, since bad is basically just something that is not good or the opposite of good.
- God gave us free will, if we didn't have the ability to choose our actions (including sin), then we wouldn't really be free.
- God created the best possible world. The best of worlds is one that would actualize as many possible events within its time span, including events that are less favorable. (I think it was Bacon who said that? Can't remember for sure.)

Saying that everything should be all peachy all the time doesn't work, even with a perfect god. Logically, perfection is just impossible because improving in one area (ie. morality) will take away from another area (ie. freedom).

1) This isn't a question of good vs evil. You can have heterosexuality without having homosexuality. Sin-free love does not require sinful love to exist.
3) Why would the best possible world be the most diverse?

[Justified]

3) Why would the best possible world be the most diverse?

I forget the actual argument. I think it was something like how diversity is better than the lack of. More stuff is possible, thus there is more potential for new and greater things. It's just a side effect that the potential for worse and unpleasant things also increases, according to the first rule.

For example, evolution. A diverse gene pool will eventually create stronger offspring, because the creatures are able to survive more that it is confronted with. On the other hand, a narrow gene pool usually results in much weaker offspring, either somehow deformed or unable to handle its environment.

Likewise, after a supposed apocalypse (Y2K!), you'd want people with diverse abilities. A lot of good 10 doctors will do you when nobody can grow food or build shelter. Yea you can heal wounds and diagnose illnesses, but you're still screwed.

If I can recall my source, I'll get back with a better explanation.

[Raj]

The cat wonders why humans bother to care about humans of the same sex marrying.
It's not like they have to marry the same gender as well.

The cat didn't understand this concept of homesexuality when it was first explained to the cat.
Two males?
Two females?

That kind of reaction. The cat still have confusion moments
:@_@:
<3s the cat.

I fully support it. Even though I do find the thought of it kinda gross lol

1. It's been scientifically shown that almost all homosexuals were born that way. Only a small percentage chose to be that way. Why would you discriminate against someone because they were born differently than you? Honestly, that's no different than being racist or sexist.

2. Homosexuals can't have kids (unless they adopted or went to a sperm bank). This is great considering that humans are heavily overpopulated. Homosexuality can actually save the Earth by preventing every square inch of land from being covered by humans >___> Plus, it's plain economically better for countries to have low population growth. The closer you get to zero population growth, the better. As far as I know Russia is the only country with a declining population (actually there may be a couple more, I don't remember), so homosexuality would economically benefit any country but Russia (etc.).

3. Why is homosexuality such a big deal? I'll tell you why. Because of religion. I can't say anything about other religions because I don't know about them, but I can tell you this about Christianity. In the Bible it says not to practice homosexuality. It also says not to lie or have bad thoughts. Don't even tell me that you don't do either of those. (*From a Christian perspective,*) God gave us free will. Who are you to prevent people from having the freedom to sin?

1. Totally agrees.
2.Totally agrees..?
3. Totally disagrees
4. There goes Saani with her support for all kinds of love

[Phunkie]

People said SSM is okay but incest isn't, because incest poses an increased chance for birth abnormalities. Yet, SSM has an increased chance for STDs. I was merely pointing out that the people who are in favor of SSM use reasons that arbitrarily apply only to SSM, and not incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc, even though there's nothing really distinguishing them. Phunkie has already responded to that though.

What STDs are you getting if you're having sex with someone who is clean?

I don't get that part at all. Not every gay person has some sort of STD.


And same-sex marriage isn't what increases the chance for diseases, it's having sex. And I'm preeeetty sure that before you get married to someone, you're supposed to know them quite well...

Anal sex might have an increased chances for catching STDs, but that's only if you're having sex with lots of random people. If you're monogamous and your partner is clean, there is nothing to worry about. No condom, condom. It matters not.

The STDs don't appear from outta nowhere...



Just because I feel inclined to have sex with someone of the same gender does not mean that I should -- I need a better reason. "Just because I feel like it" is not a good reason to do anything.

You're in love with that person??

[Peter]

Just to start off, I really enjoyed reading most of the 11 pages of discussion. It gladdens me that there are so many mature Mabinogi players out there.

Just throwing it out there, judge me or not, I am a 17-year-old Catholic. I just want to clear something up:

When people say that they hate the idea of religion or that they can't sympathize with the way a religious person views an issue, they need to understand how morality works. If religion was really "invented," then it is only natural that most people would accept it right away. Why? Because it provides a basis for morality. How are you to argue against the Bible that many people have long accepted it as a basis for their morals for centuries? How can someone argue that his morals are more valid because he is arguing "in the name of love"? The reason Prop 8 passed in California is not because the majority of the people hated gays or felt no love.

[Phunkie]

Just to start off, I really enjoyed reading most of the 11 pages of discussion. It gladdens me that there are so many mature Mabinogi players out there.

Just throwing it out there, judge me or not, I am a 17-year-old Catholic. I just want to clear something up:

When people say that they hate the idea of religion or that they can't sympathize with the way a religious person views an issue, they need to understand how morality works. If religion was really "invented," then it is only natural that most people would accept it right away. Why? Because it provides a basis for morality. How are you to argue against the Bible that many people have long accepted it as a basis for their morals for centuries? How can someone argue that his morals are more valid because he is arguing "in the name of love"? The reason Prop 8 passed in California is not because the majority of the people hated gays or felt no love.

Because like one person mentioned already in this thread:


First off, if you're using religion as the basis of your argument against homosexuality, consider that the Bible might not actually condemn it the way it's commonly believed to (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian). Of particular note in this article are the commonly cited passages (the story of Sodom, 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc.) that have been used in this very thread as the basis of the anti-gay (for lack of a better word) argument. The rest is still well worth reading, however. You may disagree with the author's interpretations of the Bible, but it's something to think about before coming to your own conclusions.

Some interpretations are too extreme and get quite out of hand.


Plus, if the Bible was written as a set of moral rules written for a specific period in history, why should all of it still apply today?

As others have said, times change and morals too. We cannot listen to the Bible word-by-word anymore, but we cannot also pick-and-choose those verses we like in order to discriminate others.

We need to be fair.

I believe in having morals. But I also believe in being fair.

The Bible just isn't fair with homosexuals.

[Peter]

Fair means that everyone receives the same package. No one is exempt from the laws, therefore it is fair.

[Phunkie]

Fair means that everyone receives the same package. No one is exempt from the laws, therefore it is fair.

No.

It is not fair.

Execution of two gay teens in Iran spurs controversy (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controver sy)

Don't ask, don't tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell)

Westboro Baptist Church Home Page (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)

http://i41.tinypic.com/2i8569.jpg

[Juno]

Because like one person mentioned already in this thread:



Some interpretations are too extreme and get quite out of hand.


Plus, if the Bible was written as a set of moral rules written for a specific period in history, why should all of it still apply today?

As others have said, times change and morals too. We cannot listen to the Bible word-by-word anymore, but we cannot also pick-and-choose those verses we like in order to discriminate others.

We need to be fair.

I believe in having morals. But I also believe in being fair.

The Bible just isn't fair with homosexuals.

Read this (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian)

[Phunkie]

Read this (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian)

Haha, I quoted it without even reading it myself.

According to this guy, it doesn't even say anything on homosexual behavior or orientation at all.

Cool interpretation. :)

[Peter]

No.

It is not fair.

Execution of two gay teens in Iran spurs controversy (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controver sy)

Don't ask, don't tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell)

Westboro Baptist Church Home Page (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)

http://i41.tinypic.com/2i8569.jpg

I said laws are fair because they apply to everyone. How does "God hates fags" websites prove that laws don't apply to everyone?

[Taycat]

I support it.

I don't see what's wrong with people other than the fact they don't understand what others feel when they like people of the same sex.

But I guess you have to grow up knowing them or experiencing them to know.

For me, my older sister has a gay friend and he's actually epic.

[Phunkie]

I said laws are fair because they apply to everyone. How does "God hates fags" websites prove that laws don't apply to everyone?

I posted all those links (and that picture, which relates to the Westboro Baptist Church) as evidence of people and governments spreading wrong messages about the gay community. It's hate, in different forms, being spread around the world.

That's why I say it's not fair.

The last one may not necessarily involve the law as much as it involves religion, but it's still amazing as how crazy some folks can be. And all of those three are most likely influenced by religion.


Don't Ask, Don't Tell prevents gay people serving in the armed forces from engaging in homosexual acts or talking about their gay relationships because:


It would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

If that's not the biggest BS you've ever heard, then I dunno what is.



I don't see what's wrong with people other than the fact they don't understand what others feel when they like people of the same sex.

:)

[Syrphid]

I said laws are fair because they apply to everyone. How does "God hates fags" websites prove that laws don't apply to everyone?

The rules of mabination
1) If your username is Peter, you may only post once every 36 hours, you have 0 rep power forever, and no one will be disciplined for insulting you.
2) If your username is not Peter, you can do whatever you want.

This is "fair", in that the same rules apply to everyone. But is it fair (ie, justified)?

[Peter]

The rules of mabination
1) If your username is Peter, you may only post once every 36 hours, you have 0 rep power forever, and no one will be disciplined for insulting you.
2) If your username is not Peter, you can do whatever you want.

This is "fair", in that the same rules apply to everyone. But is it fair (ie, justified)?

Um, in your case, the same rules don't apply to everyone. What are you saying? O.o

[Phunkie]

Um, in your case, the same rules don't apply to everyone. What are you saying? O.o

People who talk about their heterosexual relationships do not get discharged from the US military.

People who engage in heterosexual relationships do not get executed in Iran.

Those laws apply to everyone, yes. But only affect gay people or people engaging in gay sexual relationships. If you are none of the above, you are exempt.

That's discrimination. It's not fair, it's wrong.


What are you trying to say? Syrphid's analogy was right on.

[Peter]

People who talk about their heterosexual relationships do not get discharged from the US military.

People who engage in heterosexual relationships do not get executed in Iran.

Those laws apply to everyone, yes. But only affect gay people or people engaging in gay sexual relationships. If you are none of the above, you are exempt.

That's discrimination. It's not fair, it's wrong.


What are you trying to say? Syrphid's analogy was right on.

What's considered discriminating and wrong to you is not the same beliefs as everyone else. You cannot generalize statements, simply arguing "that's wrong." The way I see it, there can never be a debate over morals, at least not over a forum or in a conversation. People reason based on their own morals and thus cannot be convinced of the other. Prop 8 was voted yes by a majority whose morals are similar. It is sheer number of people with different morals that counts here.

[Syrphid]

What's considered discriminating and wrong to you is not the same beliefs as everyone else. You cannot generalize statements, simply arguing "that's wrong." The way I see it, there can never be a debate over morals, at least not over a forum or in a conversation. People reason based on their own morals and thus cannot be convinced of the other. Prop 8 was voted yes by a majority whose morals are similar. It is sheer number of people with different morals that counts here.

In your opinion, where do people draw their morals from? What is the purpose of morality?

[Justified]

How are you to argue against the Bible that many people have long accepted it as a basis for their morals for centuries?

Prop 8 was voted yes by a majority whose morals are similar. It is sheer number of people with different morals that counts here.

Fallacies! Appeal to tradition and appeal to majority! Get them away! D:

[Phunkie]

What's considered discriminating and wrong to you is not the same beliefs as everyone else. You cannot generalize statements, simply arguing "that's wrong." The way I see it, there can never be a debate over morals, at least not over a forum or in a conversation. People reason based on their own morals and thus cannot be convinced of the other. Prop 8 was voted yes by a majority whose morals are similar. It is sheer number of people with different morals that counts here.

You don't think killing gay people is wrong? Or that DADT is a form of discrimination? Do you think refusing to give a job to a gay person is not discrimination also?

Just because the majority voted for it does not make it right. Racial segregation a few decades ago, for example.

Also, just because a government passes a law does not make the law right, like the Arizona Immigration Law that was passed recently. It encourages racial profiling, which I'm completely against.


Prop 8 is wrong. Our Constitution is all about expanding liberties to people, not taking them away from some certain groups.

Why can't I enjoy the same rights you do? Why is it wrong to be gay? So wrong that you apparently won't grant me your same rights.

I bleed, I breathe, I eat, I sleep. I take craps like you do.

I want to get married. I want to have kids (through adoption or not) and form my own family.


What is it about my sexual preference that sets me so apart from you?

Why am I not your equal?

[Jean]

I consider myself to be a straight man. I think same-sex marriage is ALL GO! Everybody's got their own sick, twisted sexual fantasies that they don't tell other people about. I doubt a bit of homosexual romance is dreadful compared to the things that go on in most people's minds.

[Phunkie]

Sir, I like you. :)

[Jean]

Me? :D *doesn't know how to check replies on this forums*

[Phunkie]

Me? :D *doesn't know how to check replies on this forums*

Yeah, you! :) Sorry, I didn't quote ya. haha

I might sig what you said. It made me lol.

[Jean]

Yeah, you! :) Sorry, I didn't quote ya. haha

I might sig what you said. It made me lol.

I'd be flattered! :D Especially for one of my first posts...

[Drifter]

Oh snap?!
A wild Jean appears ._.

[Jean]

Oh snap?!
A wild Jean appears ._.

:awesome: Yes!

[Lolicon]

No.

[Hiccup]

http://marriagerights.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gayflag.jpg
http://marriagerights.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/city-hall-gay-pride-flag.jpg?w=460&h=299

Completely related to topic at hand.

[Tomoshio]

I think it shouldn't be a problem about it ...
but even tho Nexon failed before in G3 ... that ppl could marry in same gender....I think they fixed the glitch but it's kind of cool to see the same sex marriage XDD

[Phunkie]

For religious freaks,

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4w6qvjh871qb5dtro1_500.jpg

[Finnea]

The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

My first point was directed at this, so let me say the more eloquently and less vulgar. There are three levels of gathering information about people.

Cultural: Based on Culture of where they come from, mainly based off of religion.
Sociological: This is information on a group level, stereotypes are an example. *race is include in sociological
Individual: Information on a person to person basis.

lifestyle [ˈlaɪfˌstaɪl]
n
1. a set of attitudes, habits, or possessions associated with a particular person or group

First of all I disagree with that definition. "Groups" that could be pushed together as one routine lifestyle may include task groups. Task groups are groups put together for one specific task, for example the army. However that still doesn't fit well. My personal opinion and definition of a lifestyle is: the attitudes, habits, or possessions of a particular person. In today's society I think everyone lives differently and how they want to.

That said, the information gathered from lifestyles would be on a person to person basis, or on an individual level. "Gays" are a group of people, not one person. You cannot rely on sociological information for reflections on an individual level. No one group is completely routine and synchronized in their actions.



I could care less.

But leave the whole parenting alone.

For my second point I was agreeing with this post, albeit a little too emotional. What I meant to say was:

I see where you're coming from, and I definitely agree that we should leave it alone. Being a both a wife to another woman and the proud parent I will most likely take it personally and cause trouble(and it seems I already have.)


I wouldn't want to be raised by a same sex couple, especially in this day and age.....

I see where this is coming from, and I mean no harm (refering to how I worded my previous post > w<.)

I know what you mean. From a highschool(former middleschool) teacher I completely understand the fear and redicule that could happen during schooling. I hope for the best with Aoi, and I will personally take care of things if I need to. I may be tiny but I can kick ass using words. hehe =3.

[Axx]

For religious freaks,

image.jpg
I don't think anyone in this thread (from the anti-gay perspective) has used religious reasons to support their argument.

[Juno]

For religious freaks,

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4w6qvjh871qb5dtro1_500.jpg

Freaks, huh? Why do you think it's ok to so blatently insult anyone who is opposed to abortion based on religion? I also don't agree with such rational for making laws but it doesn't give license to disrespect.

Also, what if I oppose it on non-religious grounds?



Off-topic: Mehhhh too much reading, I'll read it more later.

On-topic:

It was said that the gay lifestyle is the cause of many diseases and disorders.
->Lifestyles vary on an individual basis, not a sociological. Idiots.

It was also said ITT that someone wouldn't like to be the child of a same sex couple.
->I see where you're coming from. However being married to a woman, and seriously parenting a young child, I take serious offence to that. Kindly do not revisit this topic out of kindness for me and my child. Thankyou.

Calling people idiots and asking them not to visit a thread isn't a good way to debut in a debate. If you feel they're out of line then report the post but do not take matters into your own hands.

[Finnea]

My first point was directed at this...
I offer my apologies, my previous post was a little crude :oops: ^; I fixed it. I was not in a appropriate state of mind at the time, and I hope that you all can help me make it right.

[Phunkie]

Oh, I'm terribly sorry about using the term "freak." I did not mean it in a negative tone at all.

I meant to say, for passionate, anti-abortion religious folks.

I guess you could call me a gay rights freak, as in, passionate for gay rights.

That was the context I meant it in.

I apologize if I offended anyone.

[Winryrb]

I for one, think making same sex marriage illegal is completely wrong. IF someone has feelings for another human being, being any gender, they should have the rights to a legal marriage. My family is friends wit ha gay couple ,and one of my friends said out loud, that he was homosexual. Same sex marriage isn't immoral, it is just the feeling of two human beings. That is my view on same sex marriage..