The "Same-Sex Marriage" Debate.

• Justified wrote on 2010-05-05 03:41

  Quote from Rime;28542:

  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 04:09

  Quote from Justified;28562:

  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 05:10

  Quote from Arus;28445:

  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.

  
  
  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 05:18

  Quote from Trigger;28498:

  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?
  
  

  Quote from Justified;28008:

  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 06:39

  Quote from Syrphid;28647:

  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 07:02

  Quote from BobYoMeowMeow;26401:

  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.
  

  Quote from Laconicus;26450:

  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 07:18

  Quote from Justified;28523:

  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...
  
  
  

  Quote from Trigger;28498:

  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 07:46
  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 08:04

  Quote from Peter;28764:

  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:
  
  

  Quote from Arus;28445:

  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. 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 wrote on 2010-05-05 08:12
  Fair means that everyone receives the same package. No one is exempt from the laws, therefore it is fair.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-05 08:21

  Quote from Peter;28773:

  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
  
  Don't ask, don't tell
  
  Westboro Baptist Church Home Page
  
  

  [Image: http://i41.tinypic.com/2i8569.jpg]
• Juno wrote on 2010-05-05 08:22

  Quote from Phunkie;28769:

  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
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-05 08:25

  Quote from Juno;28777:

  Read this

  
  
  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 wrote on 2010-05-05 08:38

  Quote from Phunkie;28776:

  No.
  
  It is not fair.
  
  Execution of two gay teens in Iran spurs controversy
  
  Don't ask, don't tell
  
  Westboro Baptist Church Home Page
  
  

  [Image: 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 wrote on 2010-05-05 08:38
  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.