LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=118408)

Reborn Outcast 11-24-2003 05:58 PM

Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?
 
As some of you may know (and for those of you who don't) my state of Massachusetts' Supreme Court has just voted to allowed same sex marriage. That makes us (If I'm correct) only the second state to allow that.

I don't approve of this. First off it goes against my religion (but ignore that for those of you who are going to get on me for that, because I have another reason.) Second, male and female anatomy were made specifically for the purpose of reproduction. Therefore, it is my belief that if two people are having sex, or committing sodomy (this includes anal sex between a man and a woman) in a way that cannot produce children, it is wrong.

Take note that these are MY beliefs, I do not expect anyone to agree with me.

Now, discuss (and please, no flaming).

Gabez 11-24-2003 06:14 PM

Okay. ;D

I can't help but make a little comment on religion. I happen to be a Christian myself, but I don't see homosexuality to be wrong in the least. Sure the Bible says that it's wrong, but the Bible says a lot of things - such as people who eat fish are sinners. I personally believe that Christianity should be regarded as relatavist, not absolutist. After all, when Jesus was asked what the most important law is, he said love thy neighbour (or words to that effect). Isn't tollerating same sex marriages loving your neighbour, then? Remember no-one's forcing you to marry a man. ;

You say that not using your male anatomy to fullfil it's natural purpose is morally wrong. This is a valid point (thought up by Aquinas in his theory of natural moral law no less!), but does this then mean that anything that doesn't live up to it's natural purpose is wrong? By this line of logic, contraception is morally wrong, because you're not using your penis to breed children which is what it was designed for. In addition masturbation is wrong for the same reasons. This, however is debatable - can you really condemn people for such acts? Surely if contraception keeps unwanted births down then it is morally good? If you make the move to say that it is only wrong in certain situations then it's not clear as to when it is morally acceptable and when it is not; thus your argument gets lost.

On Edit Furthermore, if you're talking about the natural thing being the most morally right, then surely going against being gay is going against what is natural for you? It's like telling you, a hetrosexul, to be gay. It goes against who you are and - if we're taking the religious aproach - who God set you out to be. You can't help the way you feel just as you can't help liking sex and breathing.

SkinWalker 11-24-2003 06:39 PM

First off, let me say that I think we can all agree that many of those influenced even moderately by their religions are going to see that "same-sex marriage" is counter to their beliefs. Suffice it to say this now, so we can all get past this point and move on to looking at the issue in a critical way rather than a theistic one.

In examining this concept critically, I challenge anyone to come up with a valid reason of why "same-sex marriage " should be prohibited.
  • We've set aside religion, so let's skip that.
  • The argument that marriage should be between those able to reproduce doesn't hold up: there are 6 billion people in the world; plenty of unwanted children; plenty of unfit parents; etc.
  • Also, there are plenty of married people who cannot conceive already, so by disallowing marriage between those that "cannot conceive" they'll be included.
  • There is no supporting evidence that homosexuality is any more likely to occur with children who are raised by homosexual parents; and
  • even if it were, there is no logical reason to care whether someone's sexual preference includes those of one's own gender
  • The argument that "same-sex marriages" are more likely to fail than sexually diverse marriages won't fly either. In fact, I'd bet my next pay check that, if anything, studies will demonstrate more stability among "same-sex marriages."

The way I see opposition to homosexuality is very simple: it's a form of racism. Homosexuality is as valid a characteristic of race as any other characteristic, in fact, I'd argue that it is more so than skin pigmentation.

Gabez 11-24-2003 09:49 PM

I couldn't agree more with that, and the fact remains that there is not one valid argument against it. If you think you have one then please fire it me and I bet I'll be able to disgard it. ;D

ShockV1.89 11-25-2003 01:52 AM

First off, on the religion thing: Don't make laws that force people to live according to your religion. Religion is a choice. If people choose not to make that choice, that is their right. It means nothing to God if they're being forced to live that way anyway.

Second, on anatomy being made "solely for reproduction purposes."... why is it so damn pleasurable? Heck, sex can be a whole lot of fun. It's also great excercise, and it relieves stress. It also is a great way to bring a couple together in a deeper way. Reproduction is the end result, yes. But why throw away all those other great benefits just because you don't want the end result.

Third: What's the big deal? What's it to you if two gay guys wanna get hitched? Are you somehow being hurt by it? Does it cheapen your marriage or the marriages of any other straight people? Do you think that suddenly your son is going to want to be gay and homosexuality is going to become the "in" thing, like bell bottoms and Britney Speares?

Hardly. It's pretty clear at this point, despite what the conservative right and religious elite would have you believe, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but rather biological. You can't help who you are, so why should you be given the shaft by society for it? Like Skinwalker said, it's the same as racism.

Feet were made specifically for walking/running/standing. Therefore, using them to drive cars is wrong.
Ears were made for hearing. Therefore, piercing them is wrong.
Tongues were made for tasting. Therefore, french kissing someone is wrong.

See? None of those make sense, do they?

Face it. This all comes down to religion. People dislike homosexuality on the basis of religion, and then try to come up with reasons beyond the Bible to justify it to non-religious people.

Tyrion 11-25-2003 02:55 AM

Righto. Let's create more bastard children in a world full of 'em. Righto.

I hate all this "must reproduce, must spread my chiiiildren!" talk. Why dont we just have sex with different women every day? After all, drinking beer and watching tv wont get you children..

Even so, which is really better for the world..for a gay couple to have a child(via adoption or surrogate mother), which means that the child WILL be wanted. Or the gays to be "split" apart, thus being unhappy in thier new marriages, all so that they create more children.

Do you really think that simply forcing the gays to reproduce will give us a better world?

The only negativity with gay sex is the possible organ damage(after all, two male bodies werent made to have sex with each other), but that's probably an accepted risk.

El Sitherino 11-25-2003 01:06 PM

What about men that marry women who are incapable of giving birth? Does this mean you don't think they should be married just because no children can be produced? ( I'm asking this to see your personal feelings not what your religion says)

Also, how is it that people always gang up on the sodomy when the bible also says oral sex is not allowed nor is porn of any manner, but that also brings to mind that in the 1500's and 1600's porn was distributed inside of bibles on the pages.

Lathain Valtiel 11-25-2003 02:09 PM

I will say this. I challenge the homosexual community then to thus support the rights of transexuals in the same breath. I cannot honestly support same sex marriage unless at the same time polygamy, transexuals, etc are also made legal.

I don't care about same sex marriages. HOWEVER, I oppose those who do not in the same breath go to legalize every alternative lifestyle. It smells to me of hypocrisy. (A LOT of gay supporters I've seen on TV do this. They try to argue that somehow homosexual issues should be given credence over transexuals. this is bigotry and hypocrisy.)

On a side note, I will refuse to support it as well if it is obtained by underhanded means. Namely, imposed by a judge in the case of the United States. Judges should not and do not have the power to make laws. Hell, in the Massachusetts ruling a lesbian judge said her our court did not have the power to force the legislature to make a law.

toms 11-25-2003 02:58 PM

agree with almost everything that has been said. I can't see any reasons NOT to allow it, except those based on religious grounds.

Those religious grounds are applied so unevenly (with people ignoring a lot of other things it says in the bible) that i don't think they can be used as a justification, and are usually just used to disguise people's own prejudices.

Most of the african anglican church that is threatening to break away from the COE on the issue of homosexuality either condones or turns a blind eye to widespread polygamy, for example.

Even if people do believe in the bible i would hope they have enough self belief and responsibility to read it as somethng that was written by men a long time ago and has most of their beliefs and prejudices built into it as much as the words of jesus.

NileQueen 11-25-2003 03:39 PM

Interesting thoughts.

Quote:

I don't care about same sex marriages. HOWEVER, I oppose those who do not in the same breath go to legalize every alternative lifestyle. It smells to me of hypocrisy. (A LOT of gay supporters I've seen on TV do this. They try to argue that somehow homosexual issues should be given credence over transexuals. this is bigotry and hypocrisy.)
I guess gays can be "racists" too.

I think SW is betting his paycheck because there is a high rate of heterosexual divorce. But are there statistics on tracking long term gay couple relationships and then breakups? Of what I know of the gay community, there seem to be more short term and shallow relationships than otherwise, but I don't know how representative that opinion is.

If the laws are changed to accommodate same-sex marriages, what other parameters of marriage might also be challenged? There might be an outcry for polygamy next....

I think it all comes down to treating your partner with respect and consideration. I am undecided about the legality of same sex marriages. The reason heterosexuals marry is that traditional society (and religion) expects it, the legal system (and society) can put them into a category, and it gives structure to society. If same sex couples marry, then they would also have the ability to have same sex divorce....$$$

Dagobahn Eagle 11-25-2003 06:42 PM

Most of what I would have said has been said already (in more than one thread, by the way:p), so I'll only add my view: If you do something by choice to someone else who by choice wants you to do it, and it is not to attack anyone or anything, and it hurts nothing and no one*, it's not right.

Thus, being a homosexual is as right as being a pedophile or an animal fetishist**. But having sex with a child or a doggie is a violation of the child's and doggie's boundaries and causes mental and possibly physical injuries.

Excersisng homosexuality by mutual choice, however, by means of anal or oral sex, masterbation, oral contact with private parts and so on, is not harmful*** and thus not morally wrong.

Footnotes
*I know homosexuality may offend homophobes and others who do not support homosexuality, but I exclude these people because homosexuality, as long as it's practiced in an appropriate way, is not meant to be harmful.
**This because pedophilia and other conditions are not chosen.
***As long as no diceases or unwanted results are produced by unsafe and irresponsible behaviour.


Dagobahn Eagle

Reborn Outcast 11-25-2003 06:49 PM

Two things.

Of course it is everyone's personal opinion. It is my personal opinion that homosexual marriage should not be allowed. To me, (I am not homophobic, I have friends who are gay) the idea of one man or woman sharing that special feeling and emotion with another man or woman is just not right. This is my personal opinion. I may not even have any reasons to back it up (not including religion).

Also, a female who is not able to give birth or a man whos sperm is not correct is different from homosexuality. These are physical defects that could occur through time, violence, or an accident. The links below (after the next paragraph) suggest that homosexuality could be with a person from birth. (I hope everyone sees what I mean, I did not write that to clearly.)

However, it is true that the left (or right side, I can't remember which) of the male or female brain in a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual person. In a male it is formed more like a female's brain, leading to the attraction to men, and vise versa with females.

Second Paragraph
Here
Here

This is not my excuse for believing that homosexaulity is wrong, I'm just pointing out that there could actually be something that affects the brains of those who are homosexual.

And Lathain Valtiel, those are some nice points there.

Quote:

Originally posted by InsaneSith
Also, how is it that people always gang up on the sodomy when the bible also says oral sex is not allowed nor is porn of any manner, but that also brings to mind that in the 1500's and 1600's porn was distributed inside of bibles on the pages.
You have to remember that in that time period, the church was doing all sorts of immoral things that led to Luther's Reformation and Cavinism and the Wars of Religion. The Catholic church in that time was a VERY messed up thing; they were selling "tickets" that would take away sin, selling away positions away in the church, all to get more money. This was why Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the church door. There were misguided people leading the church then.

Just one more thing. What type of pornography are you talking about? Was it "actual, harmful, meant to give men self-pleasure porn" or was it art, paintings of famous Bible scenes.

Anyway, back to the topic. :)

griff38 11-25-2003 07:43 PM

Oh yes, why not?
They already do everything they want anyway.
We all know it would be wrong to pass laws making these relationships ilegal. That would be immoral.

Personally I believe diversity is a key to human survival and non hetro sexual interest is simply an expression of diversity. :)

I love you all. Stay out of my way or I will kill you.

ShockV1.89 11-25-2003 08:26 PM

Quote:

This is my personal opinion. I may not even have any reasons to back it up
Really, why post it then? You know someone is going to dispute it, especially in the Senate. So what happens when someone does that (which they have) and you don't have anything to back up your opinion? You end up looking stubborn and thick-skulled.

Not to say you do. You provided reasons, however much I might disagree with them. And now I will proceed to say why:

First of all... you say that it "doesn't seem right" to you. Fair enough. Lots of things dont seem right to lots of people. But does that mean that it should be illegal? Golf seems stupid to me. Dressing up in funny clothes to whack a ball around a big open field in the hot sun doesn't seem right to me at all. But it's not hurting me, so why make it illegal?

Secondly...So what if homosexuality is biological? From what I'm reading in those articles and your post, that's what you're saying, right? That's what we're saying too!

So why not let these people live normal lives? Shall we say to them "You cannot get married, even though you deeply love this man." One might make the argument that homosexuals are handicapped, in that they do not have the capability, should they choose to marry a member of the same sex, to reproduce.

But this isn't the same thing as telling a handicapped person "You can't run in the Olympics because you can't walk!" Homosexuals getting married is something that is perfectly feasible and realistic, and their "handicap" is not what's holding them back from it. Society is.

In response to Valtiel: I agree. When people push for the rights of homosexuals, they should also be pushing the rights of any (harmless) alternative lifestyle. You can't pick and choose which one is ok, because they're all ok. So yes, I would push for legalization of all harmless alternative lifestyles, as long as they don't impose on anyone else.

Master_Keralys 11-25-2003 08:30 PM

Homosexuality is not natural. It's not. Regardless of what the left says, it is mostly behavioral. If it wasn't, people couldn't be "cured", so to speak. In other words, though people may struggle occasionally with homosexuality after turning away from it, they overall are capable of moving on and having normal, loving, heterosexual relationships.

It's an excellent point about the length of relationships. Actually, studies have shown that most gays/lesbians don't stay together very long at all. Actually, the maximum most homosexual couples stay together is two years; many are together much less.

And most don't want marriage. Why bother, when you can get all that and not have to deal with the legal issues? It is the extreme left that is pushing for legalization of gay marriage, because it suits their agenda. Now, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, just as the conservatives don't have a conspiracy against homosexuals. I don't even hate homosexuals. Though I am a strong Christian, I can deal with them. I don't have to like it though, nor do I have to "tolerate" it in the modern sense of the word. That is, I can condemn their behavior as morally wrong without saying that they are bad people - from a Christian perspective they are no better or worse than anyone else, though their actions are horrible.

The thing is, though, that the extreme left doesn't like the traditional family, because the traditional family represents traditional values and ideas, which are in direct opposition to the leftist agenda. Like it or not, when it's clear that the homosexuals themselves don't want marriage but leftist judges are setting it up and the ACLU is claiming that all gays want to be married (even though statistics show they don't), something begins to seem a little fishy.

All religious issues aside, homosexual relationships are not marriage, unless we completely redefine the word.

Marriage: the mutal relation of husband and wife; the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependece for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

That's out of Websters. Also, in a more practical sense - who are we to think that we can overturn what every civilization has said?!!! No major civilization has approved of homosexuality except in its decadence. Rather, all societies spurn it for the simple reason that it is not natural.

It's not really biological either. The studies showing that it's "in the family" do not take into account other factors - namely, the family itself, whether other family members are gay/lesbian (and can thereby influence the person being studied), etc. Rather, they are careful manipulations of numbers to show what is wanted to be shown. They also ignore the fact that while genetics may have some influence, they are obviously not all-controlling since people have turned away from homosexuality.

Quote:

I happen to be a Christian myself, but I don't see homosexuality to be wrong in the least. Sure the Bible says that it's wrong, but the Bible says a lot of things - such as people who eat fish are sinners. I personally believe that Christianity should be regarded as relatavist, not absolutist. After all, when Jesus was asked what the most important law is, he said love thy neighbour (or words to that effect). Isn't tollerating same sex marriages loving your neighbour, then? Remember no-one's forcing you to marry a man.
I'm not sure where you're coming from here. If you think that Christianity is capable of being interpreted relativistically, then you're not reading the same Bible I am. It's either true or it's not; to deny that denies the fundamental tenets of Christianity - but that's a whole nother can of worms that we can talk about in one of the Christianity threads; it really doesn't belong here. As far as eating fish goes: those commands were given for health reasons, not moral reasons. Finally, loving your neighbor does not mean letting them get away with something defined as wrong. From a Christian perspective, you love the person, hate the sin. (Mind this is a response, so no one flame me or even argue with me on this: I'm not making an argument to the overall case, but to the argument he presented and nothing else. Thanks :p ) Actually, we should in love correct them. That's what Christ himself did (the occasion where he cleared out the temple which had filled with money-lenders and whatnot comes to mind. They weren't bad, but their actions were and he dealt with them). Just as loving parents discipline their children to teach them how things should be done, so does a Christian explain the Biblical perspective on homosexuality - not in condemnation, but in love. I can't abide those who say, "You're going to hell b/c you're a homo, no choice and no redemption." It should be "Your sin is deadly, turn away from it and to Christ."

El Sitherino 11-25-2003 08:51 PM

Actually most other cultures accept homosexuality. Hell look at the greeks, the roman's, etc.

lukeiamyourdad 11-25-2003 09:00 PM

Damn Insane Sith beat me to it...Yes, The ancient greeks are one of the major civilization who accepted homosexuality. If you think the ancient greeks are not a major western civilization you got a problem...

It's obvious people condemn the "act". Why should you care about the "act"?

Is there anything to care about?

I'm a leftist and I want a wife and some kids, a normal family, yet I support homosexual marriage.

As was said before, for pete's sakes separate religion from this! They never asked any religion to accept same-sex marriage! Most arguments against this are religious. Yet we live in democratic countries, not religious republics. We've learned to separate state bussiness and religion adn I suggest we keep it this way. We don't want a new Iran.

Reborn Outcast 11-25-2003 09:16 PM

Yes, religion seems to be the only arguement against homosexaulity... however, when it is told to jump off a cliff in every discussion that takes away one more arguement from that person.

And, homosexuality is abnormal. For whatever reason, humans evolved/were created in two distinct genders, along with most other animals. One can infer that a being from one gender would, naturally, mate with the being from the other gender. However, why bother with genders at all if we're going to have men with men, and women with women. Why don't we reproduce asexually with an ability for that immense pleasure and emotion as common as a cold, and able to be turned on and off. That is one of my qualms.

(And I would like to apoligize in advance if someone who is reading this is a homosexual and is offended by what I am writing. I am not trying to offend, I am just stating my opinion.)

lukeiamyourdad 11-25-2003 09:21 PM

It is not abnormal. It existed thousands of years ago and still exists today.
Heck even some animals have homosexual tendencies and yet they are physically normal as every homosexual man or woman.
Like I said, the act is no one's bussiness but the persons involved in it.
It's like in the 1800's. Black people, asian people, latin american people were called inferior adn physically abnormal. It seems hate has transported itself from nationality issues to sexual orientation issues.

Tyrion 11-25-2003 09:28 PM

I suppose you could say homosexuality is "abnormal". But it's still natural, since it happens in NATURE with animals. Dogs, cats, monkeys, ect.. But answer this.

Would you rather have two gay parents raising up a child who else would be in a shoddy orphanage, or two still gay(no matter what..they will be gay. Just like you cant turn gay, they cant turn hetero) people in a marriage with people they dont truly love, and thusly have big arguments with each other, affecting the children's psyche, creating even more screwed up children in a world full of them.

Besides, the homosexuals can always get a surrogate mother. Thus getting a child if they wanted to.

SkinWalker 11-25-2003 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Homosexuality is not natural.
It occurs with relative frequency in nature, i.e. primates & dolphins (and these are advanced mammals compared to other animals).

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It's not.
Based on what evidence? My evidence says it is.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Regardless of what the left says, it is mostly behavioral.
The left of what? To let this settle into a left versus right dichotomy is inaccurate and ignores critical thought processes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
If it wasn't, people couldn't be "cured", so to speak.
Show some evidence of a "cure," and I'll start listening to what you have to say on this... until then, you're only stating an opinion or hope.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
In other words, though people may struggle occasionally with homosexuality after turning away from it, they overall are capable of moving on and having normal, loving, heterosexual relationships.
How do you know? What empirical evidence do you base that assumption on.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It's an excellent point about the length of relationships. Actually, studies have shown that most gays/lesbians don't stay together very long at all. Actually, the maximum most homosexual couples stay together is two years; many are together much less.
I'm interested in reading this study, can you cite a referance? ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
And most don't want marriage. Why bother, when you can get all that and not have to deal with the legal issues?
Because there are certain rights that are missing, which include the right to make decisions regarding children and inherit estates as well as simply file taxes. Among many, many others that legal marriage entails.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It is the extreme left that is pushing for legalization of gay marriage, because it suits their agenda.
That's a cop out explanation. Why does it suit their agenda? Human rights? Shouldn't that be on the agenda?

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Now, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything, just as the conservatives don't have a conspiracy against homosexuals.

Some might disagree. There is a proportionally large number of conservative right that is comprised of the so-called "moral majority" or "christian right." These extremists seek to oppress homosexual behavior in remarkably similar ways as they once did blacks in this country.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
The thing is, though, that the extreme left doesn't like the traditional family, because the traditional family represents traditional values and ideas, which are in direct opposition to the leftist agenda.
More political bull**** about a dichotomy... this kind of thinking from both the so-called left and the so-called right is ruining our country. People don't think for themselves any more, but trade their critical thinking for the views of those that are like them. They create an other to unify their group. Like the old man said... "the thing about that little purple thing in chicken crap is... it's chicken crap too."

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
All religious issues aside, homosexual relationships are not marriage, unless we completely redefine the word.
Things change all the time in dictionaries. The English language is influanced by the society.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Also, in a more practical sense - who are we to think that we can overturn what every civilization has said?!!! No major civilization has approved of homosexuality except in its decadence. Rather, all societies spurn it for the simple reason that it is not natural.
We covered the "natural" part. Most major civilizations also approved of slavery at some point in their histories... people used to be stoned to death for adultery... castes and classes once precluded many from education or employment opportunities...

It's called progress.

Quote:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It's not really biological either. The studies showing ...
What studies. Cite some references, please.

What amazes me is that in the year 2003, there are still those that think homosexuals choose their "lifestyles." A look at history will show that homosexuality has been in existance for as long as history has been recorded and, based on primate studies, probably before we had culture. It also amazes me that there are those who are willing to make a dichotomy out of this issue: Left versus Right.

The bottom line is, there is no legitimate reason to prohibit the marriage of two people of the same gender. Tradition isn't a good enough reason, that it's not natural fails as an explanation, that the world might not continue to be populated fails, that god is against it doesn't even deserve consideration in a modern secular society, and that the traditional family will break down doesn't work either. That happened in the 1970's.

For a supposedly advanced society like ours, we certainly can be barbaric and savage when it comes to human rights.

Reborn Outcast 11-25-2003 09:52 PM

Animals have gay sex to show family love, or they are just plain ol' horny. (Excuse the crude language.) We have no idea whether animals can actually have gay relationships, such as two "married" male animals.

ShockV1.89 11-25-2003 10:22 PM

I still pose the question: How does it harm you? How does two guys wanting to get married hurt you?

Keralys, you claim the "left" (and I hate it when people start talking like Rush Limbaugh) doesn't like the "traditional" family, because it stands against what they believe.

This is wrong, I think. The so called "left" is simply pushing for the rights of people who may not want to live in a traditional family. It's not saying that those who want to stay that way can't. It's not like homosexuals are pushing for a law that says men can only marry men.

Rush Limbaugh sucks. (sorry, just had to throw it in)

El Sitherino 11-25-2003 11:23 PM

I'm glad gay marriages are being supported, even though I'm not gay. This makes me glad because it means people are starting to open their f*cking eyes. I want a wife and kids and a happy stable marriage, so does this mean that I should be against gay marriages because they'll somehow cheapen mine?
Keralys, your assumptions make me sick and extremely confused.

PS: Rush Limbaugh does suck.

cekaikay 11-26-2003 12:02 AM

Keralys, do you live an a little tiny box? Have you ever met a functional gay family? I have met several, and I don't find them to be any different from my "normal" family.

I am, in fact, an extremely devout Christian. In my (note the stress on my) opinion, homosexuality is a sin and is morally wrong. However, I am not against gay marriage in the slightest. Our country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, and everyone in this country has the undeniable right to practice religion as he or she chooses. So, then, who are we to try to dictate them in what they may or may not do based on OUR beliefs? By shoving my beliefs down someone else's throat, what am I achieving other than making them think that all Christians are close-minded bigots?

I also beg to differ with your point that homosexuality has been shunned by every culture since the beginning of time. In the days of the ancient Romans and Greeks, women were seen only for reproductive purposes and men were sought out for "pleasure." I realise that this was not true for every Greek and Roman man, but it was a huge part of their culture at that time. Also, I feel that if it was not for the fact that men need women to reproduce and vice versa, it would not be considered morally wrong to be homosexual. The only reason that a man chooses to be with a woman is because he needs to have the ability to reproduce and that's how he gets it.

toms 11-26-2003 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Animals have gay sex to show family love, or they are just plain ol' horny. (Excuse the crude language.) We have no idea whether animals can actually have gay relationships, such as two "married" male animals.
im fairly sure i saw a documentary about 2 gay ducks (or it might have been swans) that returned to the same place year after year.
Can't provide a reference though, so maybe i was imagining it. (can't think why i would do that though :eek: )

I agree with others that i still can't see how it affects anyone else. I get the distinct impression (especially with all the talk of the left's agenda) that a lot of people somehow believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow devalue their marriage. It's not something i understand, but there definately seems to be some fear there somewhere.

sorry to pick on keralys, who seems to be badly outnumbered, but you say
Quote:

If you think that Christianity is capable of being interpreted relativistically, then you're not reading the same Bible I am. It's either true or it's not;
and then go on to immediately say that the rule on fish is "for health reasons". Surely this is you interpretting the bible's meaning??? Maybe god had a specific reason not to want people to eat fish? It doesn't seem at all likely, and so people have discounted it as no longer being relevant. However this is still an interpretation of the original message and could still be incorrect.

As for interpreting the bible, im fairly sure it says do not kill, but i would bet you support the death penalty. There are also numerous instances where the bible contradicts itself completely.

You have to take into account that the new testament of the bible is not, like some other religions, considered to be the "direct word of god". It is the thoughts and recollections of a number of people who met jesus and was put together a lot of years after his death. As such it is already subject ot their interpretations of what he actually meant, as well as the subtle influences of their inbuilt preconceptions and prejudices. Then you have to take into account the numerous translations and revisions, all of which will have slightly altered and interpreted the meanings yet again. Heck, if the bible somehow managed to miss out a couple of jesus disciples and his wife, i think they may have altered the meaning of a few things in a few places.

Master_Keralys 12-01-2003 04:01 PM

As far as other societies having it - yes, I acknowledged that. I thought I pointed out though, that they only accepted it in the decadence of their culture.

Skin, I'll see if I can find those studies for you, but I really don't have time right now... something about HS and lots of hard classes...

The Bible actually says, Do not murder in the original translation. It actually supports the death penalty for a plethora of crimes.

Unfortunately, guys, the thing is that their are liberals with an agenda that goes against the family as we know it. Just as their are extremists on the right... anyone ever hear of the KKK? It's just that the liberals tend to have more influence for the simple reason that they haven't already been discredited.

I don't have a problem with gay people chosing that lifestyle. But like it or not, most do choose it - because they can choose to move away from it. While there are certainly a lot of factors that may incline someone to be gay, there is nothing that empirically shows that they have no choice in it - far from it: if it was predestined, people couldn't turn away from it.

The Bible's warning on fish is not "my opinion" - and it's not relativistic. Some research into the original text and whatnot clearly shows that most of the provisions regarding what could be eaten and what could not was simply on animals that often carried (and still carry) disease. As there weren't many ways of sanitization back then, the provisions were provided for safety. It's also not really relevant - except that homosexuality is also a health issue.:rolleyes:

I don't live in a tiny box. I live in a Christian box... And I believe the Bible is true. I also go ahead and look for other evidence; to do otherwise is irrational, and - to be honest - stupid. I still come to the same conclusions.

Skin, you're right about the dichotomy. But only to a certain point - most of our culture doesn't think critically. It's sad, but people don't know how... so they follow the crowd, whichever crowd that happens to be.

A "cure" - okay, how about the large numbers of people who have been rehabilitated in Christian programs. Try looking up focus on the Family's programs on it, and you'll see a lot there. Sure, there have been relapses - but's that true of any temptation, including extramarital sex, so...

The evidence is in programs like those. Just look for it and you'll find it. Seriously. I'd get the link, but I have to go to my next class in about 1 minute, so, to finish quickly... Or not. Must go. but try those...

CloseTheBlastDo 12-01-2003 04:22 PM

MK,

While I would never accuse you of being the type of person who keeps themselves in a 'box' intelleactually (I know for a fact that isn't true), I'm afraid your conclusion regarding homosexuality is not taking modern evidence into account - at all.

Quote:

But like it or not, most do choose it - because they can choose to move away from it.
Modern studies show that, in fact, it is the other way round. The evidence would suggest that most homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, rather it is an inborn trait.

There were two seperate studies I referenced in another thread regarding homosexuaity. (It seems to have dropped off the bottom, but when I get more time I'll track that thread down).

The first study inspected the brains of people who claimed to be homosexuals, and found that a very particular part of the brain was physically different - consistantly, and IN EVERY SINGLE CASE when compared to hetrosexual brains.

The second study (independantly) reproduced homosexual behaviour in female rats by introducing unusually high levels of testosterone into the parent rat's womb.
The brains of the rats were studied and shows very similar differences to the human brains.

The conclusion? Unless you can specifically dispute the methods of the study (which hasn't been done yet to my knowledge), the evidence is clear. It shows that in all the cases tested, the people involved didn't choose to be gay, it was part of their inherent make-up.


My second problem is with this branch of your argument:

Quote:

A "cure" - okay, how about the large numbers of people who have been rehabilitated in Christian programs. Try looking up focus on the Family's programs on it, and you'll see a lot there. Sure, there have been relapses - but's that true of any temptation, including extramarital sex, so...
So does this mean that every young person who thinks they are a little overweight should fight their natural urge to eat and force themselves not to? When is the ability to fight natrual urges justified, and when is it not?
...are you saying you don't follow any of your natural ugres? I'm assuming you do. Do I have the right to tell you which ones you should or shouldn't be following?


And one final point - to even try and draw any kind of parallel between those who want the equal rights of homosexuals recognised and the KKK - well - to be honest it's a little amusing really.
I know your not trying to actually make a direct comparison, just trying to show 'extremes' of things. Well, if you see equal rights as extreme, well - I guess you have a point.

...I mean, when the rights of women to recieve equal pay to men were being discussed by the American goverment in the 80's, many Christian and Jewish bodies voiced protest.

...why? Because it threatened to undermine the 'family unit' - where the man is the breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker

ShockV1.89 12-01-2003 04:22 PM

Go on, keep ignoring my question... just prove what I already know.

[edit] The above statement is directed at MK

Datheus 12-01-2003 11:53 PM

Assuming we are talking about the Christian faith: No, sorry, but same sex marriage should not be allowed. Just no.

If any person walked into my church, a church they have the option to not to enter and an option not to be affiliated with and tells me I have the change my religion because of his religious views, I'd kick his ass.

You're telling me that it's ok to force one group of people to change their lifestyle in favor of anothers. Something most of you so strongly detest.

If a gay person wants to get married, I strongly suggest they go find a religion that accepts them. One person is not going to change the views of a church with roots 2000 years deep. Don't even try to.

This has nothing to do with the Goverment. In fact, it has nothing to do with anyone outside of your church! Religion is a personal choice. Much like you can't force a gay person to stop being gay, you cannot force a religious man to stop being his own flavor of religious.

Should the state recognize a civil union between a homosexual couple the way it recognizes a civil union between a heterosexual union? Yes. Should gay marriages be allowed? That depends on what religion you are talking about. But it should not be forced upon any religion who doesn't want it.

ShockV1.89 12-02-2003 12:01 AM

But we're not talking about the Christian faith. We're talking about marriages in general. People can be married without being religious. But nobody is saying that gay marriage needs to be forced on anyone.

As it stands now, same sex marriages are not recognized by the government. This should change, as, aside from it being the culmination of a couples love for each other, there are signifigant legal and financial benefits that come from a recognized union.

Datheus 12-02-2003 12:11 AM

Then yes. Like I said. The government should acknowledge civil unions between gay couples in just the same way they acknowledge them between straight couples. Apparently, Vermont and Mass. are the only states that do this.

Druid_Allanon 12-02-2003 08:31 AM

Personally I don't see what's so bad about homosexuals getting married. What's wrong with homosexuals? How does it affect you if they want to marry? Before critisizing homosexuals, put yourselves in their shoes. How would you feel if you are a homosexual, and are being ridiculed almost everyday?

C'jais 12-02-2003 01:01 PM

Without doing more piling on MK, I'll say that this really sounds more like a religious issue for the people who are against it. As it is now, I doubt you'd be able to find many people "against" homosexuality who aren't religious in one way or the other.

And oh yes, homosexuality is a health issue, same as any garden variety heterosexual relationship :)

Don't know if we can't get any homosexuals into this debate, but it'd certainly be interesting to hear how it's like from their side of the fence.

Darklighter 12-03-2003 04:03 PM

I don't want to go about trying to insult people's religious beliefs here, but I feel obliged to say one or two words. I understand that from a religious point of view, people can see homosexuality as a wrong and sinful act. Why is this? Because it has been commanded by God, or whatever all-powerful being may exist? It's been set into concrete rules established over the last however many thousand years?

Now, try to abdecate the effect of religious beliefs on this subject. Just for one teeny tiny second. Don't look at this issue from a common opinion set by those in your religion...look at what you believe, each of you personally. Why is homosexuality wrong? What about the issue that men and women were "designed" (no doubt by God, eh?) to reproduce...that a relationship between two men could not exist because it goes against the "laws" set by nature.

I know a lot of people have pointed out that we are not here simply to reproduce over and over again. We have grown as a species over the last thousands of years into superior, intelligent and emotional beings. Relationships do not exist for the sole pupose of reproduction, to think that would be so demeaning to us as human beings. Relationships exist on many different levels, with both men and women and same sex...what reason can be given to pronounce that a union such as marriage can only exist between a man and a woman? With all the advancement and evolution that has taken place, mentally and socially, in the history of our species, should we really condemn ourselves to be so narrow-minded and afraid of change?

So, what about rehabilition then? What about curing the homosexual population of this "anomoly" by trying to change them back to "normal"? So we're saying that homosexuality is like a disease, a stray or emotional mutation away from normalility (assuming that we're defining "normal" as being heterosexual)? Homosexuality is not something wrong with the human body; it is a different opinion on the subject of sexuality, an alternative view. How can you cure on opinion or emotional feeling? That in itself is taking away our very individuality, something that separates us from each other, taking away our right to express our views and opinions, taking away our freedom. How can you say that we are "individuals" if certain people think everybody should be the same, to think the same way? Well, if some people want to look at rehabilitation as a solution, then they have quite a large population to cure...

I believe we're all entitled to our own views and opinions, and to express ourselves as we see fit. I don't see why gay marriages should be viewed as so "abnormal" and "wrong"...I spose a lot of people who are gay would think that heterosexuality is wrong...how can we say who is more right? My point is, why should we be so narrow-minded towards a subject that so many people are in favour of. As most people have said in this thread, those arguements against gay marriages are mostly religious-based. Disallowing same sex marriages is also causing more controversy for the gay population, and as has been proved (in this thread, anyway), that many heterosexual people are even in favour. I think you'll find that the benefits of allowing same sex marriages will be much greater than the disadvantages. That's all from me for now ;)

Master_Keralys 12-03-2003 09:26 PM

Okay...

First off, Shock - you got me. I did miss your question... so now I'll answer it. Does it hurt me?

Directly? NO.
Indirectly? It can.

Now before everyone jumps on me, here's what I mean: I don't have a problem with their choice. I may disagree with it and feel its sin, but it's their decision. It does affect me when it affects family structure. The one father, one mother family is a tried and true structure that's been embraced for most cultures for millenia. Deviation from it can have disastrous effects on the culture. Moreover, in looking at gay/lesbian couples (I think I said this earlier), most of them don't want marriage. Actually, most of their relationships only last a few months, and I think it's less than ten percent that say they were actually entirely faithful to their partner for two years or more - if not that, then it's close. Now, if that's true, why is there such a huge movement to legalize marriage for them?

I've been criticized for this before, and I'll probably take flak here, but I'll say it again: certain segments of the left - by which I mean certain liberal groups, not the "left as a whole" - have an anti-family agenda. Don't ask me why, but these are the people that have pushed for an absolute removal of Christianity from every aspect of life. Christians try to present a certain perspective and are called bigots. Christians try to call for morality and are called "old-fashioned" or "behind the times". The people I'm talking about have a greater interest in eradicating Christian morality than in advancing others' rights. Here's what I mean: it's the same people that espouse radical feminism (don't get me wrong, I think women's rights are awesome and absolutely essential - just not some of the extremist agendas), the homosexual agenda, and incredible degrees of moral relativism. These don't seem all that related - except that they all contradict tradition Judeo-Christian (and even Muslim and other religions) morality.

It's no more a conspiracy than the KKK - not a great comparison, but it makes the point. It's just that the KKK's rhetoric is clearly ridiculous, and even their "Biblical" standpoint is idiotic - something that the authors of the scriptures they quote would never have agreed with. It's just that these liberal groups couch their ideas in rhetoric of "tolerance" and appeal to the past history of wrongs against other groups. However, there's a distinct moral difference (and like it or not, it is a moral issue, at least from the public's perspective) between slavery or oppression of blacks or hispanics or women and homosexuality. Even from a Biblical perspective...

The biggest problem with our culture is that we have this idea that all viewpoints and lifestyles are equally "right" - the only definition of right is "if it works for you". Now, this will be an extreme example, but try to see beyond that to my point, okay? If the "tolerance" of today - that is, we can't offend anyone and their viewpoint is right as long as it works for them - then Hitler was a great man. He not only followed his own morality, but he achieved it in a great way. Moreover, the terrorists behind 9/11 are also incredible heroes.

That's a bit extreme, I'll admit. But it's the logical conclusion of the moral relativism espoused by many liberals (and all too many conservatives, unfortunately). But they won't tell you that, either...

My point is, where's the line? Where do we get the prerogative to throw out not centuries, but literally many millennia of morality?

Lathain Valtiel 12-03-2003 09:47 PM

There's something I have to say by the way.

Another thing about the pro-gay party I hate is how you are automatically branded a bigot if you try to exercise your right to not see that kind of cavorting in public, gay parades, and so on.

I don't know about you, but if it is allowed to be anti-American, then it should sure as all eternal heck be allowed to be openly anti-gay, with no insults and namecalling going to either side.

And gays use the political correctness to their advantage. One Catholic group in a college declined to elect a gay person to be their group leader and were penalized for it, because supposedly not electing a gay person to a position AUTOMATICALLY makes you anti gay. I forgot what college campus this was. But either way, it is a crock. I will thusly also not support gay marriage until the politically correct crap is abolished.

ShockV1.89 12-03-2003 10:00 PM

Quote:

It does affect me when it affects family structure. The one father, one mother family is a tried and true structure that's been embraced for most cultures for millenia. Deviation from it can have disastrous effects on the culture.
But it does not affect your own family structure. Homosexual marriages are within their own circle. Allowing homosexuals does not restrict you from living within the traditional family unit.

Evidence, please, for the idea that deviation can have "disastrous" effects on the culture.

Quote:

Moreover, in looking at gay/lesbian couples (I think I said this earlier), most of them don't want marriage. Actually, most of their relationships only last a few months, and I think it's less than ten percent that say they were actually entirely faithful to their partner for two years or more - if not that, then it's close. Now, if that's true, why is there such a huge movement to legalize marriage for them?
We already asked you for credible evidence for this. We've seen none so far...

Furthermore, there is a movement to legalize it because, even if you are right and very few actually do want to marry, they still should have that right if they choose. They are harming nobody, and by marrying they gain access to signifigant marital benefits, that they should have a right to.

Quote:

Don't ask me why, but these are the people that have pushed for an absolute removal of Christianity from every aspect of life.
It's not the Christianity that a lot of people have a problem with. It's the intolerance that affects others. That intolerance may have some place within a religious group or religion. But it should have no dominion over people who do not subscribe to it, or do not believe that certain portion of it.

Quote:

If the "tolerance" of today - that is, we can't offend anyone and their viewpoint is right as long as it works for them - then Hitler was a great man. He not only followed his own morality, but he achieved it in a great way. Moreover, the terrorists behind 9/11 are also incredible heroes.
Your analysis fails, as the situations are completely different. Both the 9/11 terrorists and Hitler were having signifigant negative impacts on groups of people who did not want it. Homosexual marriages, as I have said before, do not affect anyone except the two consenting adults within the marriage. The analysis would be better applied to right-wing Christian groups than to leftist radicals, although it's too extreme for either one.

Tyrion 12-03-2003 10:12 PM

Just as a note, I do believe it is in every human's rights to have a choice to watch a gay parade, or to partake in pro-gay activities, or even believe homosexuality is wrong. However, I also do believe that it is also in the homosexual person's right to express thier homosexuality freely, with the same benefits from nuptial laws as heterosexuals would.

Now, Master_Keralys

Please, as others before me have requested, show us some actual credible surveys on the average span of a gay relationship.

As well, I understand that homosexuality is against your cultural beliefs. But what right do you have to force your cultural beliefs onto homosexuals, arguing that the majority do not accept homosexuality, and thusly it shouldnt be legal.

I could say, hypothetically, that it is against my culture for you to be heterosexual. Please turn homosexual, or else you are infringing on my cultural beliefs. Who's right? Niether. Niether are wrong, either.

As for your Hitler scenario, you are missing one important detail. That Hitler forced his views on the masses. Namely, Jews. He condemned Jews in a horrible holocaust. He didnt let everyone just follow thier own cultures, he forced others to become Christian, often even doing mass genocides on races that didnt want to change thier beliefs.

Again, I think that it would be wrong for homosexuals to parade into your house, demanding that you accept gays. However, I also think that it is wrong for you to do the same to them.

Darklighter 12-03-2003 11:14 PM

This isn't about abolishing the Christian religion, but it's ideals should not be forced onto those who do not believe in the Christian faith (as I'm sure there are many) i.e. same sex marriages should not be banned because the religion these public leaders believe in dictates it.

However, this issue is still being looked at from a religious point of view only. What about the moral aspects of it. MK, the example scenarios you gave did make me think...though, there is a distinct difference between them and the issue of homosexuality if you look at them in a moral context. The two examples you gave involved brutal, deliberate murder of fellow human beings. Are you saying homosexual marriages fall into that same category?

I do not think gay marriages should be viewed as a crime. I'm sure it will not affect you if you do not probe, and that's exactly what is being done. People are treating it as such a big deal, thus further separating and labelling homosexuals away from the so-called "norm" (whatever that may mean). Homosexuals are as much humans as heterosexuals, and no matter how much they are singled out and ridiculed, should be given the same equal rights that they deserve.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.