Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SOB on July 31, 2003, 10:20:37 AM
-
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/images/07/31/top.pope.2.ap.jpg)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.gay.marriages/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html
-
Who does he think he is, speaking on behalf of all Catholics like that?
For those who are a bit slow, this is intended to be an ironic remark
-
Yup.:(
The only thing wrong with Republicans IMHO is their pandering to the Bible thumpers.
...and I'm not condemning religion, just those who try to force their interpretation of morality on others.
-
As soon as a gay couple can pop a kid out of their ass, I say let them get married. Until then, they can just pretend like they do now.
-
"And go forth... hunt out the man who dare lay with another man or woman with another woman in glorious view of God's naked eye. But on the subject of priests who rape little boys... let us not be too intolerant. Let us turn a blinded eye."
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
As soon as a gay couple can pop a kid out of their ass, I say let them get married. Until then, they can just pretend like they do now.
By the same rationalle a heterosexual couple who can't have kids neturally shouldn't have them because they just "can't do it" right ?
-
Sure, why not. And ugly people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce either.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Sure, why not. And ugly people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce either.
There go my parents dreams of spoiling grandchildren.
-
Intolerant of deviant behaviour? Abso-freakin-lutely.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
"And go forth... hunt out the man who dare lay with another man or woman with another woman in glorious view of God's naked eye. But on the subject of priests who rape little boys... let us not be too intolerant. Let us turn a blinded eye."
RIGHT ON!!
-
As a heterosexual, I am grossly offended by their decision to fornicate with members of the same sex.
Reparations may be in order.
-
According to the poll on SOB's third link,68% think gay marriages are just fine.
-
Originally posted by Apache
Intolerant of deviant behaviour? Abso-freakin-lutely.
Why is it that homo-phobes always focus on the sex act exclusively?
Like all relationships, sex is only part of the equation. Love, devotion, loyalty and friendship are just a few of the many parts of a relationship.
To be honest, the thought of a man sticking his noodle into the anus of another man gives me the heebie-jeebies, but what business is it of mine what they do in private?
On the other hand, I've always liked watching lesbians go at it, so I'd be all for lesbian marriages! :D
But I digress.
Apache, apart from the sex act, is a loving, caring monogamous gay relationship deviant behavior? Or is it strictly the sex act that qualifies?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Yup.:(
The only thing wrong with Republicans IMHO is their pandering to the Bible thumpers.
The Pope's a Republican???
Wait... the Pope's a Bible Thumper????
Wait... the Republican Bible Thumpers are all Popes?
Wait.... the Pope's Bible is used to Thump Republicans?
Whew........ I'll just go clean out the garage I guess.
-
tolerating deviant behavior and saying it is ok are 2 completely different animals.
I'm very tolerant of gays, about the only intolerant behavior I have is my uncontrollable need to leave the room while the wife watches that show with that fruit Christopher Lowell.
I don't get together with friends looking for someone I think is gay and then beating their ass, I don't leave the restaurant when the waiter is gay. basically I make every attempt to ignore their sexuality- no matter how fluffied up I think it is- and treat them like I would an other person.
but should we give them the legal right to marry and tell our kids that that is an ok lifestyle (much like the schools are teaching them anyway), no.
it's not ok, it's wrong and it is a chosen behavior. I know they say they don't choose to be gay. ok fine, I'm not gay so I wouldn't know if that is true or not so I can't argue with it. but the baby rapers say they don't choose to feel the urges they feel either.
gays do choose to act on their feelings, or not. so even if they don't choose to have gay feelings they do make a choice to commit gay acts. and most of us are tolerant of that. even though we find these acts deviant and completely wrong. we tolerate it. we even put up with the damn parades when most deviants at least have the decency to keep it to themselves.
now you want society to sign off on their behavior. tell my kids that it's a legitimate life choice, and that the relationship between 2 men and a gerbil is the same as what me and their mother have had together for the last 20 years.
no I don't think so. there is a line you can cross in your behavior and we let you cross it years ago, don't keep push'n.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
now you want society to sign off on their behavior. tell my kids that it's a legitimate life choice, and that the relationship between 2 men and a gerbil is the same as what me and their mother have had together for the last 20 years.
Yeah, you just ooze tolerance.
SOB
-
A child needs a mom and a dad. Period.
Some gay couples desire to get some fuzzy feeling playing family weighs very little compared to the needs of the child.
Just say NO to gay adoptions.
-
last I checked tolorate meant allow, permit, or put up with.
I don't aprove of it, I don't want anybody to mis-understand and believe I think it's ok. I just tolorate it.
-
I always get a kick out of homo-phobes when they say that gay people have "chosen" to be gay.
Ok, how many of us red-blooded american men "chose" to start liking girls back when puberty hit? Exactly, none.
So, Capt. Apathy, what are you worried about? You can't really seriously believe that gay people could influence heterosexuals to give up hetero life and try the "gay way". C'mon, you know that ain't gonna happen.
-
Originally posted by banana
Why is it that homo-phobes always focus on the sex act exclusively?
Like all relationships, sex is only part of the equation. Love, devotion, loyalty and friendship are just a few of the many parts of a relationship.
To be honest, the thought of a man sticking his noodle into the anus of another man gives me the heebie-jeebies, but what business is it of mine what they do in private?
On the other hand, I've always liked watching lesbians go at it, so I'd be all for lesbian marriages! :D
But I digress.
Apache, apart from the sex act, is a loving, caring monogamous gay relationship deviant behavior? Or is it strictly the sex act that qualifies?
Come on banana. I know you're not that naive. What, gay partners are attracted to one another because they're good cooks or they like to decorate their houses the same or 'cause he's pretty?
Lol, nooo! It's pooky chute packin' they're into.
-
Originally posted by Apache
Come on banana. I know you're not that naive. What, gay partners are attracted to one another because they're good cooks or they like to decorate their houses the same or 'cause he's pretty?
Lol, nooo! It's pooky chute packin' they're into.
Seriously, has your experience of homosexuality come from within the walls of a jail cell?
-
Wow Apache, I think you just lowered the IQ of this thread by a good 10 points. Congratulations!
SOB
PS to Apathy...While your benevolent act of not kicking homosexual's tulips and not inconveniencing yourself by leaving a resturaunt if they're your waiter is truly noble, it does not make you tolerant.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Wow Apache, I think you just lowered the IQ of this thread by a good 10 points. Congratulations!
SOB
PS to Apathy...While your benevolent act of not kicking homosexual's tulips and not inconveniencing yourself by leaving a resturaunt if they're your waiter is truly noble, it does not make you tolerant.
Oh, I'm so sorry. How un PC of me. What could have I been thinking of?
Your opinion differs from mine. Wouldn't be...intolerant would you?
-
So, Capt. Apathy, what are you worried about?
I'm a father, I have many other things going on in my life but that's the main one. as a father one of the things I try to do is guide my kids into aceptable forms of behavior. I don't really care who anybody sleeps with, the problem is they aren't happy with tolorance. they say they want tolorance. but what they really want is for you to give them a big hug and say "so you took it in the shorts last night? good for you, you're so special"
these big campaigns to change the cariclum in school where you have to tell kids it's an exceptable "life choice".
they say they don't care if we aprove or not, they have a right to do their own thing and I agree. but if that's the case why do you need us to legitimise it by giving you a state recognised mariage? just do your own thing, go play house somewhere and do me a favor and try to keep it out of sight of my kids.
don't you miss your closet?
-
Originally posted by banana
I always get a kick out of homo-phobes when they say that gay people have "chosen" to be gay.
Ok, how many of us red-blooded american men "chose" to start liking girls back when puberty hit? Exactly, none.
So you sayin' homo-sectchools never completed pooberty?
-
Originally posted by Apache
Oh, I'm so sorry. How un PC of me. What could have I been thinking of?
Your opinion differs from mine. Wouldn't be...intolerant would you?
Yes, I would be. I am intolerant of bigots. I don't think I ever stated otherwise.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Seriously, has your experience of homosexuality come from within the walls of a jail cell?
Lol, funny you should mention that.
We used to lock up a guy alot for PDC. He had to be kept isolated so he wouldn't get his butt kicked for coming on to the other inmates.
After a while, he would start going bonkers. The jailers would put him in pop for an hour or so. He would give a BJ or 2 and give up the booty. He would be fine then and had plenty of cigarettes to boot.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
A child needs a mom and a dad. Period.
Some gay couples desire to get some fuzzy feeling playing family weighs very little compared to the needs of the child.
Just say NO to gay adoptions.
Yea, those kids are MUCH better off in a foster home, or an orphanage. Who cares if someone is willing to love and raise them... :rolleyes:
-
"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."
Opinions are like stunninghunks... everyone's got one. everyone's opinion (and stunninghunk) is different relative to the subject. but i really like their word choice in that quote.
"common inheritance" - wtf? I love the narrowminded "one moral to judge them all" crap.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Yes, I would be. I am intolerant of bigots. I don't think I ever stated otherwise.
SOB
Then you would qualify as a bigot yourself. I mean afterall, bigot is a defining term of intolerant...right?
-
intolerant of intolerance?
-
I'm a lesbian.
-
Homophobes are funny.
Do you realy think your kids are gonna be "recruited" or something? Could you have been convinced that you didn't like girls when you were a teenager? LOL
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yea, those kids are MUCH better off in a foster home, or an orphanage. Who cares if someone is willing to love and raise them... :rolleyes:
What you fail to take into consideration is that most giver nations (i e nations people from Europe or US go to to find children to adopt) have a ban on adopting to same sex parents. So those children will not benefit. At the same time, there are 50 couples on each domestic adoptive child (i e a Swedish child, or a US child) and we both agree that it is best for the children to be adopted by "real" parents.
-
There are over 400,000 "at risk" or older children in need of adoptive parents in the US alone. Limiting their chances of having a loving home is STUPID.
I'm not talking about the newborn white babies with a string of applicants a mile long for each one.
-
PS to Apathy...While your benevolent act of not kicking homosexual's tulips and not inconveniencing yourself by leaving a resturaunt if they're your waiter is truly noble, it does not make you tolerant.
ok, we also don't lock people up for homosexual acts. we generally make an effort to treat gays the same as we would anyone else. when I work with someone who happens to let it be known he's gay it makes no difference in how I treat him or if I'm friendly or not. we don't single them out for any special negitave behavior, that is tolarance.
if you want congratulations on a new boyfriend you've come to the wrong place. I don't aprove, I wont pretend that I aprove. I wont go out of my way to bring it up, but if you want to bring up the subject I'll speak my mind.
but to many people mariage is a sacred thing (most who don't treatit as such don't stay married for long), we don't allow marriages for political convenience (imigration purposes, it happens but is not legal), we don't allow people to marry animals, and we don't allow people of the same sex to marry each other. it cheapens the institution and is an ofront to many married people.
there are others who's behavior I don't aprove. adulterers, I have many people I work with who freely screw around on their wives while out of town. they say they have feelings (horneyness being the main one) and they use thisto justify their acts. how is this different? I'm tolorant of them too. I don't aprove of their behavior but I tolorate it. I do my best not to treat them any different because it's none of my business, much like the gay situation.
but if they wanted to start effecting the curiculem in my childrens schools to reflect that adulterous behavior is ok, they'd face the same resistance from me that gays do.
maybe the adulterers would want a law that allowed for temporary 'mini marriages' for when they are out of town, legaly recognised and all. that way if the girl you are shacking up with while away from your family gets sick you could put her on the company health plan and drive the rates up further for the rest of us.
-
accidental double post
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There are over 400,000 "at risk" or older children in need of adoptive parents in the US alone. Limiting their chances of having a loving home is STUPID.
I'm not talking about the newborn white babies with a string of applicants a mile long for each one.
Well, HELLO who do you think it is the homos want to adopt?
And COME ON are you seriously saying that we should take some 6 yr old kid and hand him over to a homo couple? "Here is dad and dad...good luck kid" ..eh..I dont think so.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
but to many people mariage is a sacred thing (most who don't treatit as such don't stay married for long), we don't allow marriages for political convenience (imigration purposes, it happens but is not legal), we don't allow people to marry animals, and we don't allow people of the same sex to marry each other. it cheapens the institution and is an ofront to many married people.
It's a piece of paper and a ring! For some, it may be a financially good idea.
And sacred to what? Christianity? hmm, Hindu's can be married right? What about Islam? Sacredness is relative.
-
Lol, I think this thread needs a link to the nullo story.
-
Better give the kid to a decent person who might be an "homo" than to anyone in this bunch of moral cavemen that would grow him as mentally crippled as they are.
Mm'kay, so if kids are that malleable, shouldn't heterosexual couples start making out in front of their kids to make sure they get right what goes into where?
-
It's a piece of paper and a ring! For some, it may be a financially good idea
to many people mariage is a sacred thing (most who don't treat it as such don't stay married for long)
do the courts and your future ex-wife a favor. if you don't find it sacred don't do it.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Sacredness is relative.
Hehehe, yeah, especially in them inbred southern states!!
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
As a heterosexual, I am grossly offended by their decision to fornicate with members of the same sex.
Reparations may be in order.
even good looking female members.....who ask you to join them?
-
Ok...here I go...I know you guys wanna know what I think.
I love them as God loves me....it's their lifestyle and the sin which I'm against.
Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted as such, leaves me wondering what on earth justifies that belief.
Gays need help, not encouragement to continue to ruin their lives further.
I think the difference is I believe Gods word and base my morality by the same...some of you are your own Gods making up your own morality.
Mans nature is corrupt, including my own.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And COME ON are you seriously saying that we should take some 6 yr old kid and hand him over to a homo couple? "Here is dad and dad...good luck kid" ..eh..I dont think so.
Why not?
http://www.lethimstay.com/
-
I love them as God loves me....it's their lifestyle and the sin which I'm against.
Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted as such, leaves me wondering what on earth justifies that belief.
Anyone who thinks that christianity is normal and should be accepted as such, leaves me wondering what on earth justifies that belief.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, HELLO who do you think it is the homos want to adopt?
And COME ON are you seriously saying that we should take some 6 yr old kid and hand him over to a homo couple? "Here is dad and dad...good luck kid" ..eh..I dont think so.
Hortlund, give an example why. I agree with you, but not to the fact that they are bad for being gay. I understand that two women may love each other very much and be decent people. What they do with their lives is their business. But I do no believe in handing them a child, and that child growing up at it's young age believing that a man and a man or a woman and a woman, can have a child. A man and a woman create a child, and that's what should be shown to them. I dread for the poor child that has to go through grade school with two gay men as his parents. That is a recipe for disaster.
-
To say you where borne Gay is to say God made a mistake!
And that in my book is like spitting in God's face.
No I do not believe in Gay bashing !!
But I also do not think that they should be able to marry and have the same rights as man and woman!
I believe that it is a lifestyle choice and It is there choice to make.
I personaly believe that they will burn in HELL!
But that's really up to them and GOD.
-
Originally posted by rc51
To say you where borne Gay is to say God made a mistake!
And that in my book is like spitting in God's face.
No I do not believe in Gay bashing !!
But I also do not think that they should be able to marry and have the same rights as man and woman!
I believe that it is a lifestyle choice and It is there choice to make.
I personaly believe that they will burn in HELL!
But that's really up to them and GOD.
So my friend over there with spina bifida .... is that a mistake by God?
Is there anything on earth that would make you choose to be gay? Anything?
-
No I'm sure God has a plane for you're friend.
And atleast he knows where to park the skin bus.
-
No I'm sure God has a plane for you're friend.
Does God also have a plane for me?
I WANT A NICE 109-G2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PINK, please!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Anyone who thinks that christianity is normal and should be accepted as such, leaves me wondering what on earth justifies that belief.
Ya ever spend real time reading the Bible ski? It's not about the gray matter my friend...it's a matter of the spirit:)
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Pope's a Republican???
Wait... the Pope's a Bible Thumper????
Wait... the Republican Bible Thumpers are all Popes?
Wait.... the Pope's Bible is used to Thump Republicans?
Whew........ I'll just go clean out the garage I guess.
There are two links Toad..my comments focus on the second.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So my friend over there with spina bifida .... is that a mistake by God?
Is there anything on earth that would make you choose to be gay? Anything?
First of all MT....this life and this world has not, nor ever will, offer perfection...it is full of death and pain....as Gods word defines it.
Secondly, the same applies to homosexuality....not being nutured by loving parents as a young child, negative life experiences as a young child with no support or encouragement from parents, followed by a natural desire to be loved, yet not loved by anyone might cause a person to love incorrectly.
I don't have the answers....it's just that even if I believed in nothing...no God at all....common sense tells me that it's just not right for two men to lay with one another. It's all just Rudes belief system...nothing to get worked up about...God will sort it all out and theres nothing you or I can do to change who He is.:)
-
A very close friend of my family is a very well respected Doctor who is the head of Pediatrics at a large Hospital in the US.
When my grandfather was ill he helped to save his life...twice.
My father went into a Hepatitis coma a few years later. The doctors here almost killed him by leaving his IV drips on full for a long period of time. Once again our doctor friend came to the rescue and told my step mother what she needed to do after she paniced and called him.
The man has helped and litterally saved thousands of children from abusive homes and has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to help stamp out child abuse. He is the author of a number of books on the subject.
He is also gay.
You homo-phobes out there should stop and think about that for a few minutes.
-
yeah, i've read bible. As far as i'm conserned it ranks right up there with Snow White and Easter Bunny, little bit more elaborate, that's all.
And no, it's not a matter of spirit, it's a matter of naivity as far as i'm conserned.
-
Someone should tell fatty and mason that the pope doesn't approve of their "relationship".
MiniD
P.S. Did this thread acheive everything you were hoping for SOB?
-
Originally posted by Curval
He is also gay.
You homo-phobes out there should stop and think about that for a few minutes.
All the good deed's done on earth will not make up for the fact that he is a sinner!
At some point in his life he will have to have a long chat with God.
It really is between them.
Cause me just being a mortal man i will be a sinner as well iff i judge people.
I try very hard not to/
-
Originally posted by Apache
Come on banana. I know you're not that naive. What, gay partners are attracted to one another because they're good cooks or they like to decorate their houses the same or 'cause he's pretty?
Lol, nooo! It's pooky chute packin' they're into.
Apache, let me try to get my point across a different way. Most marriges, after say, 20-30 years, start to rely less on sex than they do companionship. Can we all agree that our 80 year old grandparents are not staying with the relationship because of the hot sex?
Since you seem to assume that all gay relationships are based on nothing but sodomy, what about elderly gay relationships that have lasted 30 or 40 years? Surely, elderly gay couples find happiness with each other based on companionship and love, not on sodomy, do they not?
-
Gay couples can now legally get married in Canada...It's time to wake up and quit discriminating.
-
Originally posted by banana
Apache, let me try to get my point across a different way. Most marriges, after say, 20-30 years, start to rely less on sex than they do companionship. Can we all agree that our 80 year old grandparents are not staying with the relationship because of the hot sex?
Since you seem to assume that all gay relationships are based on nothing but sodomy, what about elderly gay relationships that have lasted 30 or 40 years? Surely, elderly gay couples find happiness with each other based on companionship and love, not on sodomy, do they not?
Well if they aint doin it in da butt then maybe they take out there false teeth and Gum each other off!!
OH GUMBY OH GUMBY I'm ready you studd.:D
-
I support keeping marriage an act of faith and love between a man and a woman.
I dont care if two people of the same sex want to be lawfully united, or partnered...whatever. But I want to keep lawful marriage traditional.
-
these big campaigns to change the cariclum in school where you have to tell kids it's an exceptable "life choice".
Capt. Apathy, as a former teacher and a parent, I can tell you right now that every child needs and wants to feel accepted for who they are. The schools do not preach that being gay is acceptable, they preach that whomever *you* are, is ok, where "you" can mean anything from a band geek to a football jock to a gay person, etc.
Imagine how you'd feel when you were 16 and full of lust for girls, and you were told you were a pervert, or a freak, or worse.
Gay people keep trying to tell us heteroes that they did not choose to be gay, they just *are* gay. When the hormones kick in, nobody gets to fill out a "I like girls" form. It just happens. It's one of those "birds & bees"(or in some cases "birds & birds) things.
Could some heterosexual out there(you know who you are) please tell me at what point in their life they chose to want to fornicate with the opposite sex?
-
We don't need God or any other belief system to tell us it's wrong. Mother Nature herself does that job just fine. If men were meant to intimately check each other's prostates, there would be a whole world full of butthole babies.
What they do is their business and I really don't give a damn. But they sure as hell shouldn't get the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have.
-
I really do not know why this type of topic always has to degenerate into something ugly, but it invariably does.
Next tacky remark will see some attention. Stay on topic.
-
What they do is their business and I really don't give a damn. But they sure as hell shouldn't get the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have.
Raub, why not?
-
I think the Pope is right that the sacrament of marriage should not apply to homosexuals.
But the Catholic sacrament of marriage and the legal institution of marriage are two completely different things, at least in the US, where we have separation of church and state.
I think what we need to do is come up with a different term for gay marriages (I suggest "gayrriage" or "homatrimony") so that people like the Pope won't get upset that the state is defiling their sacrament of marriage by letting gays get married.
I also think that it would be unfair to extend the legal benefits of marriage only to homosexuals. I think if a bunch of straight guys are sharing an apartment they should be eligible for the same benefits.
-
A very close friend of my family is a very well respected Doctor who is the head of Pediatrics at a large Hospital in the US.
When my grandfather was ill he helped to save his life...twice.
My father went into a Hepatitis coma a few years later. The doctors here almost killed him by leaving his IV drips on full for a long period of time. Once again our doctor friend came to the rescue and told my step mother what she needed to do after she paniced and called him.
The man has helped and litterally saved thousands of children from abusive homes and has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to help stamp out child abuse. He is the author of a number of books on the subject.
He is also gay.
You homo-phobes out there should stop and think about that for a few minutes.
so.. What, being gay makes him be a good DR and a caring person? it's imposable to do a good job and be a caring person without sleeping with other men? exactly what is your point?
as others have mentioned it's not a problem with gays, it's a problem with their behavior (in this one area) homosexual activity is deviant and IMO imoral. just because someone participates in an imoral activity doesn't make every aspect of their life worthless.
just as many of the adulterers I work with are otherwise good people. many are good workers, excellent craftsmen, freely giving of their time and effort if they see someone in trouble or need. all around great guys, but it doesn't make adultery a moraly upstanding activity that should be recognised and legitimised by society. Clinton did an exceptional job as president, but that doesn't make his adultery ok. if it where legal I'd have voted him in for another term. as his adultery was a personal moral issue between him her and his wife, it wouldn't effect my vote. but if he wanted to change the laws to have our gov't sanction adulterous behavior I'd fight that.
I don't advocate some sort of consentration camp or other way to 'contol' people or other discrimitor act against gays. thsi isn't about their basic rights being denied in areas unrelated to their deviance. this is just our refusing to except as ok one part of their lives on this earth, the part that is imoral and wrong.
as Rude put it quite well--
I love them as God loves me....it's their lifestyle and the sin which I'm against.
-
Originally posted by banana
Raub, why not?
My question is why?
-
Uh, because they are people who have jobs, pay taxes and help make the world go round just like you, Raub?
-
No-one noticed that the Gay have often been grown by Heterosexual ?
Hmmm ... I see a patern ...
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I really do not know why this type of topic always has to degenerate into something ugly, but it invariably does.
Next tacky remark will see some attention. Stay on topic.
Do you read every post on every thread? lol, how do you keep your sanity?
-
Originally posted by Lance
Uh, because they are people who have jobs, pay taxes and help make the world go round just like you, Raub?
Relax Lance, you can still live with Kip and do whatever it is you do. I just don't think that he should receive health benefits, etc because you want to get "married."
-
So lets just play with the facts for a second and assume that homosexuality IS a choice.
Now what exactly is the LEGAL reason to disallow a couple who have made this "choice" to legally live as a pair? What is the LEGAL argument that would preclude them from having spousal rights such as visitation in a hospital or inheritance or filing joint tax returns, or ADOPTING?
Heck, in texas a gay couple is just as "immoral" as a hetero couple that uses a vibrator. Maybe people who adopt should be asked about vibrator usage. Or maybe the only good parents in the world are the ones who limit sex to the missionary position.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Point four: Adoption
Studies show that while growing up children need to relate to both male and female parents. We can surmise from this:
a) Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children
b) Homosexuality has no bearing on parent performance, a mom is a mom and a dad is a dad, but you need both.
Your logic is pretty good up until the end there. By the same logic all divorced or widowed parents should lose their children to a couple ASAP.
Since I won custody of my children from my divorce I guess I should have lost my kids to a foster parental unit. Silly really. Love is the key, not gender.
-
While I've never understand why homosexual men do what they do, it doesn't bother me. As long as they don't do it in front of me why should I care?
And why on earth would anyone choose to be gay? Spend the formative years of your life thinking you're a dirty persona non grata, perhaps feeling that your own faith is not as good as a heteosexual's (ostracized by the 'true believers') and also risking the being beaten crapless if you try and seek out people of a similar persuasion in gay clubs or whatever. Yeah, that sounds like a choice worth making.
I'm glad I'm heterosexual - puberty was hard enough nevermind adding in the problems of coming to terms with being 'abnormal'.
And I love Capt. Apathy's analogy with a child rapist. That's just crazy.
I don't agree with gay adoption - not because it would be wrong, but precisely because of the views expressed in this thread. The child would never stand a chance.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Ok...here I go...I know you guys wanna know what I think.
I love them as God loves me....it's their lifestyle and the sin which I'm against.
Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted as such, leaves me wondering what on earth justifies that belief.
Gays need help, not encouragement to continue to ruin their lives further.
I think the difference is I believe Gods word and base my morality by the same...some of you are your own Gods making up your own morality.
Mans nature is corrupt, including my own.
That's all well and good, except that there is no god.
...and I agree with Lance (who?) Why should we suffer SOB's intardnet findings alone?
-
What is the LEGAL argument that would preclude them from having spousal rights such as visitation in a hospital or inheritance or filing joint tax returns, or ADOPTING?
what about other types of imoral relationships? should adulterer be able to set up side mariages for when they are out of town? should their employers be required to admit a girlfreind on the side to your health plan?
how about paligamists? should one person be able to mary 30 or 30 women(hell every women he knows not covered by health care) then join the army. thereby setting them all up with health care? he could really set up a great bussiness. they get free health care, he keeps the extra dependence allowance. that could be some great cash wouldn't it? what is the extra pay for being married right now? x30? how about 2 soldiers who set up a "marriage" they could each get adependet allowance and get a rasie just for signing paper.
other than the religios reasons, the purpose of mariage is to provide some kind of contract in an atempt to provide stability for children both have brought into this world. otherwise the proper 'foreward thinking' way to do it would be to do away with mariage all together. I mean why else would you need it? I mean women don't need someone to be legally bound to them financially, they can take care of themselves just fine thanks. isn't that the 'right' way of thinking?
so if it's a contract set up to protect children and gays can't produce children, then there use of mariage consideration is just an atempt to exploit a already burdened system that wasn't set up with them in mind.
-
Rude said..
Gays need help, not encouragement to continue to ruin their lives further.
For someone who is usually so well spoken and thoughtful , I can hardly believe that came from your cursor.
Exactly how many documented cases of sexual re-programming have been successful, Rude?
-
That explains his close links with the North Korean secret police...
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
so.. What, being gay makes him be a good DR and a caring person? it's imposable to do a good job and be a caring person without sleeping with other men? exactly what is your point?
The man stands to be discriminated against merely because he gay by people with attitudes like yourself. That is my point.
He isn't a great man because he is gay, he is just a great man who happens to be gay.
-
Originally posted by banana
Exactly how many documented cases of sexual re-programming have been successful, Rude?
Sorry for buttin' in (no pun intended) but Ann Heche changed affiliation. (last I heard)
-
The man stands to be discriminated against merely because he gay by people with attitudes like yourself. That is my point.
He isn't a great man because he is gay, he is just a great man who happens to be gay.
so if he could still be just as great if he decided not to act on his imoral urges I fail to see the point you where trying to make.
and exactly how is he being discriminated against? he has a right to mary any woman who is mutually interested, just like the rest of us? we can aknowlege him as a great man and still not aprove of with every aspect of his life. there are many great men who have done things in their personal lives that are somewhat less than wonderful(in fact you could probably say most have something) that doesn't negate the great things they have done. but their being outstanding people doesn't make imoral activitys moral just because some great men also have that fault.
sometimes good men do bad things.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Next tacky remark will see some attention. Stay on topic.
Roger, Skuzzy. I apologize for saying the Pope was a Republican. :o
At least my garage looks better than this thread now. ;)
-
I agree with what you are saying when you say the good things he has done need not be negated Capt., but the moral highground that you are effectively preaching from "tends" to lead toward people discrimminating against others merely because they are gay in many different ways. You have already judged this man to be immoral, the next guy who has the same belief may well think that it justifies a good bellybutton kicking. THAT is where your stance leads, and that, once again, is my point.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
do the courts and your future ex-wife a favor. if you don't find it sacred don't do it.
If I want to pledge my faith and love to my partner in the future, I don't need to go through a ceremony or jump through some hoops to get a piece of paper "proving" my love and devotion. If it means I'll owe less in taxes and get some nifty benefits on the side, then sure, I'll get that piece of paper.
And whats this sacred business? sacred to what? christianity? islam? the easter bunny?
-
You have already judged this man to be immoral, the next guy who has the same belief may well think that it justifies a good bellybutton kicking. THAT is where your stance leads, and that, once again, is my point.
fist off I never judged HIM to be imoral. just aknowleging that hparicipates in an activity that is imoral.
second we already have a standard law making it illeagal for someone to kick his bellybutton so he's covered. if that legal decision wont protect him what makes you think this one would.
and btw - not only he protected by the standard laws against assault but he also has special protection most of us don't. whereas someone who kicked his bellybutton would get much more time than an attacker who comitted the same crime against me, his being a hate crime would get extra sentencing where my guy would probably be out by noon tomorow.
-
Dowding you're not being consistent.
First you say that you don't understand why someone would choose to be gay, and if I understand correctly you are implying that you agree with "born gay" principal.
On the other hand you state that kid wouldn't have a chance - as in it would have to make a choice to be gay because of the "parents" influence.
So which is it ?
If kid wasn't born gay, then it won't be despite the parents.
-
People are using the same argument against gay marriage that was used a few years back about mixed race marriages. "The kids will never have a chance!" "They'll be ostracised" "They'll be teased".......
Or maybe other people will start to learn that it's not such a big deal.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
fist off I never judged HIM to be imoral. just aknowleging that hparicipates in an activity that is imoral.
second we already have a standard law making it illeagal for someone to kick his bellybutton so he's covered. if that legal decision wont protect him what makes you think this one would.
and btw - not only he protected by the standard laws against assault but he also has special protection most of us don't. whereas someone who kicked his bellybutton would get much more time than an attacker who comitted the same crime against me, his being a hate crime would get extra sentencing where my guy would probably be out by noon tomorow.
Okay, so he is a heck of nice guy...too bad he will rot in eternal damnation? lol
Laws define the consequence of beating anyone up, it is the cause we are talking about. That is why the laws you refer to in your last paragraph have been inacted. They are there to try and protect gays from beatings merely because they are gay. In your example above what exactly did you do to deserve the bellybutton kicking you got?
-
That's not what I meant FD. I was not talking about the sexuality of the child - I was talking about the social acceptance of the child among its peer group, given that the child would have 'two dads' or 'two mums'. Can you imagine the bullying that would occur?
But then maybe midnight target is right and that it will be a barrier overcome with time.
-
People are using the same argument against gay marriage that was used a few years back about mixed race marriages. "The kids will never have a chance!" "They'll be ostracised" "They'll be teased".......
Or maybe other people will start to learn that it's not such a big deal.
and many of those kids where teased beat'n and life was much harder. I had front row seats eith my sisters youngest son, and life wasn''t easy for him. he's a great kid (well, man now actually) but he deffinatly has some issues with his identity that aren't exactly healthy (and I sure wish he could find some way to be comfortable with himself)
but the difference is AFAIK inter ratial marriage is not considered an imoral act. very few people would ever try to say it is (I've heard some say they found it in the bible somewhere, though I'm fairly familiar with the bible and am unaware of the passage they refer to. I also seriously doubt the literacy of the ones who where trying to sell this point of view). homosexuality has been considered wrong thoughout time in almost every society (some are more tolorant than others but none I'm aware of never actually condoned or aknowleded it)
-
but the difference is AFAIK inter ratial marriage is not considered an imoral act.
If you go back to the sixties in America's south, the merest hint of a inter-racial relationship would get the black man lynched and people certainly viewed it as immoral (not the lynching part, strangely).
-
true, but that was a relitivly small area of the world. and that is also an example of imorality (bigotry and racism) being gov't sanctioned and excpted as normal by society. if society in general and the southern gov't in particular had refused to perpetuate this imoral activity maybe some of those people could have been saved, or at the very least some sort of justice could have activly been persued against their attackers
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Anyone who thinks that christianity is normal and should be accepted as such, leaves me wondering what on earth justifies that belief.
I don't read anything about christianity in Rude's post. Maybe he's Jewish...
Such great philosopher's on this thread...
Capt Apathy...what squad you belong to...are you recruiting?
-
homosexuality has been considered wrong thoughout time in almost every society (some are more tolorant than others but none I'm aware of never actually condoned or aknowleded it)
So if we could find a successful society that condoned or accepted it..... well then your point would be nullified wouldn't it?
You see, there was this guy called Alexander the Great. He conquered the world, set up a thriving society, honored science and the arts ... and he was queer as a 3 dollar bill.
-
Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
I don't read anything about christianity in Rude's post. Maybe he's Jewish...
Such great philosopher's on this thread...
Capt Apathy...what squad you belong to...are you recruiting?
Uh, he mentioned the Bible.
"Ya ever spend real time reading the Bible ski? It's not about the gray matter my friend...it's a matter of the spirit"
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So if we could find a successful society that condoned or accepted it..... well then your point would be nullified wouldn't it?
You see, there was this guy called Alexander the Great. He conquered the world, set up a thriving society, honored science and the arts ... and he was queer as a 3 dollar bill.
Isaac Newton, Einstein, many many famous artists and painters... the Roman Empire... etc.
-
Okay, all those that support legalizing gay marriages, please check yes or no on extending it to the following types of relationships/behaviors as well:
a) Incestual: Brother marries sister, mother marries daughter, mother marriers daughter..etc
b) Pedophilia: Age of consent is, after all mostly a reflection of a particular societies moral values (by the way, moral doesn't automatically mean religious). So how about a 50-year old man wanting to legally marry a 12-year old girl?
c) Polygamy (been mentioned already, of course)
d) Adultery (also mentioned, and rather eloquently)
e) Beastiallity: Of course, you'd need to somehow prove the goat enjoys it.
Every arguement made in support of gay marrieage could be made about the above behaviors. Yet, many of you who support gay marriages find at least one of the above behaviors as abhorent and deviant.
You need to go back to the reasons marriage has been legally codified in almost every society/culture on earth. It isn't simply to make to people feel better. It stems primarily from the need to stablize the relationship of a man and woman, in order to insure the children they bring into the world are taken care of. I also think it was influenced by factors associated with the differences in roles men and woman played when societies were young (i.e. primary provider vs. child-bearing/rearing roles). Religion also played a part, but the idea of marriage predates most if not all organized religions.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You see, there was this guy called Alexander the Great. He conquered the world, set up a thriving society, honored science and the arts ... and he was queer as a 3 dollar bill.
ROFL
MT for crying out loud, you sure have a way of stating theories and guesswork as if it was the truth.
But by all means, lets see your evidence...
-
You know, I was thinking about this during my drive home...
The Greek city-state of Sparta encouraged homsexuality amongst it's military. Were these all born homosexual, or was it a learned behavior? Did they choose to be gay, or was there some "gay gene" in the Spartan genetic code?
-
Originally posted by Curval
A very close friend of my family is a very well respected Doctor who is the head of Pediatrics at a large Hospital in the US.
When my grandfather was ill he helped to save his life...twice.
My father went into a Hepatitis coma a few years later. The doctors here almost killed him by leaving his IV drips on full for a long period of time. Once again our doctor friend came to the rescue and told my step mother what she needed to do after she paniced and called him.
The man has helped and litterally saved thousands of children from abusive homes and has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to help stamp out child abuse. He is the author of a number of books on the subject.
He is also gay.
You homo-phobes out there should stop and think about that for a few minutes.
Show me where I said a gay person could do no good or contribute to society?
That's not the point....is it right that two men sleep together or is there no right or wrong? Perversion cool with everyone....is it all free? Should our children be encouraged to accept whatever lifstyle a person chooses for themselves, irregardless of the harm it brings to a society?
As to being a homophobe....your kidding yourself....mine is just an observation and a sharing of my beliefs....if you want to condone and encourage homosexuality, your free to do so....I just believe it is harmful to encourage sin of any kind.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
yeah, i've read bible. As far as i'm conserned it ranks right up there with Snow White and Easter Bunny, little bit more elaborate, that's all.
And no, it's not a matter of spirit, it's a matter of naivity as far as i'm conserned.
Great thing about life....we all make our beds.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
You know, I was thinking about this during my drive home...
The Greek city-state of Sparta encouraged homsexuality amongst it's military. Were these all born homosexual, or was it a learned behavior? Did they choose to be gay, or was there some "gay gene" in the Spartan genetic code?
You were thinking about gay sex on your drive home?
I knew it.
-
sabre, look up the word CONSENT in the dictionary :)
-
fd ski,
if the brother is 45 and the sister is 37, it is still incest...
-
Do you believe homosexuality is akin to paedophilia and bestiality, Sabre?
-
Originally posted by banana
Rude said..
For someone who is usually so well spoken and thoughtful , I can hardly believe that came from your cursor.
Exactly how many documented cases of sexual re-programming have been successful, Rude?
Look....folks need to be loved. It's inherent in all of us at birth. All I've said is that no man makes a choice, Hey....i'm going gay. Life, experiences, wanting and lack all have effect on each and every one of us....we were not made to be alone, yet so many are and have been since birth...poor choices are made....they carry with them behavioural(sp) consequences.
I'm not good with leaving folks in places which ultimately destroy them....as to documented cases, I have no idea....my point was only that to live outside of Gods will for any of us, myself included, is to slowly destroy who God created us to be.
There are consequences to our actions....we do reap what we sow.
-
So if we could find a successful society that condoned or accepted it..... well then your point would be nullified wouldn't it?
nope, you'd need to find a significant number and again thats one man. not a soiety that embraced homosexuality or recognised gay marriages.
most recognise the rights of gays to mary just not each other many gays have raised children. I never knew any personally but I have heard of people whos parents divorced imediatly upon kids leaving home, then the kids find out dad was gay all along. so gays are not legally banned from raising kids because they have gay feelings (thats the part that gays say is born into them, right, the feelings not the act?).
so the idea of those being 'born gay' not having the same rights as the rest is crap, many gays have married women, raised kids, and enjoyed their tax credits and medical coverage.
and Raubvogel, I'd forgot about sparta, they did acutally condone and even encourage that behavior (and your point well taken they did 'teach' kids to be gay), so there's the only society I'm aware of that openly encouraged it (I concede there may be others,though not many). wheren't spartans known to be somewhat odd, kinda bloodthirsty a basiclly fluffied up? that seems to be the lessons I remember from history even before I learned of the whole queer bunk buddy thing.
-
Apparently so Dowding, and he seems to be asserting that it has nothing to do with religion that makes him feel that way. I guess it just "is" and has always been.:rolleyes:
Rude...a tad defensive old chap. I have not accused you specifically of being a homo-phobe. You seem to have moved away from the concept of believing in something because it is right for you and not pushing your beliefs on others, which was I thought the premise of your being "born again". Now you appear to be making moral decisions for the good of mankind.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Apparently so Dowding, and he seems to be asserting that it has nothing to do with religion that makes him feel that way. I guess it just "is" and has always been.:rolleyes:
Rude...a tad defensive old chap. I have not accused you specifically of being a homo-phobe. You seem to have moved away from the concept of believing in something because it is right for you and not pushing your beliefs on others, which was I thought the premise of your being "born again". Now you appear to be making moral decisions for the good of mankind.
Wrong again Curv....read my first post...just sharing. BTW, being born again doesn't make me perfect....I still get pissed off from time to time:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Wrong again Curv....read my first post...just sharing. BTW, being born again doesn't make me perfect....I still get pissed off from time to time:)
It wasn't your first post that concerned me...it was the progression from "sharing" to something akin to a Jerry Falwell stance.
Allow me to demonstrate:
"Sharing" turned into this....
"I'm not good with leaving folks in places which ultimately destroy them....as to documented cases, I have no idea....my point was only that to live outside of Gods will for any of us, myself included, is to slowly destroy who God created us to be."
or
"is it right that two men sleep together or is there no right or wrong? Perversion cool with everyone....is it all free? Should our children be encouraged to accept whatever lifstyle a person chooses for themselves, irregardless of the harm it brings to a society?"
I mean...YIKES man.
-
right/wrong, good/evil, moral/immoral... these words were invented by those believing what one should and should not do.
don't tell me anything is set in stone aside from the laws of newtonian physics and other mathematical crap... it's all relative.
MT mentioned Alexander the Great... I offered the Roman Empire. They had morals according to their society. Who's to say societies aren't dynamic? It's going to happen... "immoral practice" will be the norm. I'm fine with it as long as it doesnt affect me.
I'll start pissing and moaning once there arent any heterosexual women to be found. :p
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Okay, all those that support legalizing gay marriages, please check yes or no on extending it to the following types of relationships/behaviors as well:
a) Incestual: Brother marries sister, mother marries daughter, mother marriers daughter..etc
b) Pedophilia: Age of consent is, after all mostly a reflection of a particular societies moral values (by the way, moral doesn't automatically mean religious). So how about a 50-year old man wanting to legally marry a 12-year old girl?
c) Polygamy (been mentioned already, of course)
d) Adultery (also mentioned, and rather eloquently)
e) Beastiallity: Of course, you'd need to somehow prove the goat enjoys it.
Every arguement made in support of gay marrieage could be made about the above behaviors. Yet, many of you who support gay marriages find at least one of the above behaviors as abhorent and deviant.
You need to go back to the reasons marriage has been legally codified in almost every society/culture on earth. It isn't simply to make to people feel better. It stems primarily from the need to stablize the relationship of a man and woman, in order to insure the children they bring into the world are taken care of. I also think it was influenced by factors associated with the differences in roles men and woman played when societies were young (i.e. primary provider vs. child-bearing/rearing roles). Religion also played a part, but the idea of marriage predates most if not all organized religions.
This thread got out of control quick, but this post hit the nail on the head, IMO.
Personally, I disagree with everything even remotely associated with 3 dollar bills.
I dont want them around me, I dont want them around my children (If I end up having any), and I dont want them marching in Times Square obstructing traffic.
This doesnt make me (or anyone else of the same mindset) intolerant at all. If I was intolerent, I would be making an active effort to obstruct their lifestyle. Since I am only passively avoiding contact, I dont see the harm I am causing them. You leave me alone, I leave you alone, everyones happy - right?
The problem with the whole 'gay' movement is that (I think) they want to be accepted as normal. This will never happen because theyre, quite frankly, not.
When it comes to children, its a little more important, IMO. If two guys want to get together and play doctor, fine with me, close the windows and drop the shades - have at it.
But when two guys or two gals get the idea that they'd like a child, I would be firmly opposed to gay adoption.
On the surface, a child needs input from both a male and a female roll model. What kind of 'values' (I know that word will be attacked) are a gay couple teaching a child?
They are rasing a child in an abnormal environment and then when he reaches schooling age, what is he faced with? A whole new world where his vision of normalicy, Daddy and Daddy, is not only completely abnormal, but cause for harrassment.
Can you imagine the shock a child would be faced with upon learning that past 4-5 years of his conscience life before 1st grade were viewed from behind a stained glass window? It would shake the foundations of just about everything else. His trust in his 'parents,' his impressions of others - he would be questioning his own beliefs and, up until this point, known truths.
This is the kind of stuff that puts children into therapy. They become hate filled, confused, and develop serious psychological problems.
Gay adoption is a bag fat No in my book because now two abnormal people are exposing their behavior to a child that doesnt have a say one way or the other.
I suppose my bottom line is that Im sick and tired of seeing the shift in our society from one with no tolerance for anything to one with tolerance for everything. This is compounded by the fact that its rammed down my throat.
I know who I like and who I dont like. I dont associate with criminals, low lifes, homeless people, white trash, black trash, latino trash, gang members, transsexuals, transvestites, or homosexuals.
I dont need the real life equivalent of Eric Cartman's mother telling me I should be accepting of everyone. Im not.
The only difference between me and someone who opposes my viewpoint is that I have a line drawn in the sand. On one side is marked 'Right' and on the other 'Wrong.'
Those of you (The usual suspects) resorting to name calling (bigot, intolerant, stupid, redneck, racist, etc, etc) never drew that line. In your mind, and what you would like others to believe, you think that you are being tolerant. You are accepting of everyone and everything (except opinions that differ from yours, apprently) and are educated, culured, enlightened, and righteous because of it.
In reality, however, because you never drew that line seperating right and wrong, its difficult to classify anything as wrong... its just 'different' to you, and you label the rest of us 'homophobes' because we cant be accepting of 'differences.'
We dont look at them as 'different.' We see them as wrong, and we'd really appreciate it if you would practice a little bit of what you preach and be a little more 'tolerant' of our viewpoint.
EDIT: Thanks for the sig material, SOB - truely a classic line there.
-
How anyone can equate, say, sex with a preteen girl in some Bangkok hell-hole or sex with a chicken with consensual sex between two adult men or women is absolutely beyond my understanding.
I'm not good with leaving folks in places which ultimately destroy them....
I'm assuming you mean this in a 'go to hell, do not collect 200 pounds' sort of destruction. So a guy, like Curval describes, who devotes his life to helping others is condemned to share eternity with mass murderers and Budweiser drinkers because of where he put his nob on an evening?
-
How anyone can equate, say, sex with a preteen girl in some Bangkok hell-hole or sex with a chicken with consensual sex between two adult men or women is absolutely beyond my understanding.
and how anyone can try and equate a marrieage between 2 men and the mariage between my wife and me is completely beyond my understanding.
most people who want to partake in imoral acts often justify it by saying "it's not near as bad as.....". no, 2 gays sleeping together isn't as bad as someone sleeping with pre-teen child (which is why we simply refuse to suport gay activity, whereas the guy sleeping with a child would be prosocuted), but both activitys are on the wrong side of the 'moral line', while only one of them is on the wrong side of the 'legal line' (in most states. do some states still have the anti-gay laws?)
not all imoral activitys are ilegal and not all activitys that are illegal are imoral.
-
Where does morality come from? The government? No, religion. This is why we have a separation.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Where does morality come from? The government? No, religion. This is why we have a separation.
I dunno about you, but my morality came from my upbringing.
::sticks big old 'Gay Adoption Worm' on hook and casts::
;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
ROFL
MT for crying out loud, you sure have a way of stating theories and guesswork as if it was the truth.
But by all means, lets see your evidence...
I'd post pictures of Alexander and his gay lover, but Skuzzy would probably ban me.
This is from Robin Lane Fox: Alexander the Great:
Hephaestion was the man Alexander loved, and for the rest of their lives their relationship remained as intimate as it is now irrecoverable: Alexander was only defeated once, the Cynic philosophers said long after his death, and that was by Hephaestion's thighs. (p. 56)
At the age of thirty Alexander was still Hephaestion's lover although most young Greeks would have grown out of the fashion by then and an older man would have given up or turned to a younger attraction. Their affair was a strong one; Hephaestion grew to lead Alexander's cavalry most ably and to become Vizier before dying a divine hero, worthy of posthumous worship. (p. 57)
-
So a guy, like Curval describes, who devotes his life to helping others is condemned to share eternity with mass murderers and Budweiser drinkers because of where he put his nob on an evening?
not directly, it's your belief in, and a relationship with god that saves you from hell, not your activities. continuing this kind of behavior would tend to cause problems in your relationship with god. however an honest effort to avoid this behavior, and a genuine plea for forgiveness would absolve you of the debt.
and for those of you for whom the Bible has been misquoted. nowhere does it say those who lead a good life, and are kind to others get to go to heaven.
to do some heavy para-phrasing. it says that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness, and salvation. the hook is that you are supose to apriciate the gift so much that you feel a debt to try to live by gods laws (I do I'm hooked), and look out for others as god looks out for you.
so if curvals friend lived a great life and did many good things but refused to except god, (and with the true exceptance the obligation to live as he wants comes automaticly)then no he wouldn't get in.
however if he excepted Christ and asked for help with this problem in his life he would.
-
Saur...I wonder how many gay people you know but have no idea that they are gay. I'm willing to bet there are a few. When/if you find that out about someone you really care about will that line you draw stay in place?
-
My mom died when I was 13, and I knew her for fewer years than that. My dad raised me and my sister single handedly.
He dated a few women, but I never really talked to them beyond what I did in school.
A mother figure isn't necessary once the child is beyond a certain age... unless of course you want to learn fashion or how to match your clothes... then at that point, I fail to see how a gay parent would fail in that aspect.
-SW
-
Curval, if my kid robbed a bank I'd still love him. I'd have real problems with his behavior but it wouldn't change how I feel about him.
same thing if he was gay. I'd still love him, it wouldn't change how I feel about him. however I wouldn't be suportive of imoral actions. he wouldn't be bringing dates to my house for family dinners. he damn sure wouldn't be sharing a room under my roof (this, wouldn't be a problem with visiting married children and their spouse). I also wouldn't allow my kids to chare a room with someone in an adulterous straight relationship .
-
I gritted my teeth and read through this..
#1. Gays don't affect me directly, so i don't care.
#2. Morality as used in here is a shorter version of saying "GOD SAYS IT'S WRONG! TEH GOD IS TEH MASTAH!"
I don't believe in god, but i don't go around telling people god doesnt exist - i keep it to myself. I don't care about that either, unless someone tells me, for whatever reason, that i'm "going to burn in hell", or if they try to 'convince' me i'm wrong and must repent.. Feh.
#3. Why bother? As every issue that's come and gone, homosexuality will eventually be accepted as normal, as have many other formerly unaccepted.. things.
PS - i'm not reading this thread any more.
-
I had to think a while before responding to that Capt. The reason is because you have raised the "what if my child turned out to be gay" question.
I would also be feeling the same way you would about dates, sleeping in the same room etc. if one, or heaven forbid all my children, is gay. That is if I were to be 100% honest.
Having said that though, I think that it would not be too much to suggest that there would be a chance that my sons and I could have some kind of normal relationship if that were the case. I fear the same would not be the case for you.
Clearly you would, based on what you have said here, view your gay son's sexual activity as immoral. He would have a "problem" and it would be your moral obligation to cure him of his affliction. Your son, on the other hand, would have made a lifestyle choice, consciously against the wishes of his father.
I see a recipe for disaster.
In my case I have at least been exposed to one example of my own hypocricy in feeling that gay people are an abhoration. Maybe there is a chance that I could deal with it...but then again..maybe not. I don't know.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
"And go forth... hunt out the man who dare lay with another man or woman with another woman in glorious view of God's naked eye. But on the subject of priests who rape little boys... let us not be too intolerant. Let us turn a blinded eye."
You forgot the part about treating women (the givers off life) not as equals.
Homosexual relationships is a common occurence in all top mammals for those ranting about mother nature and all.
Go tell the Spartans!!!!
-
curval, I'm no analist but I sugest that you have just uncovered your true opinion on the subject. that you know deep down this activity is wrong and would be disturbed and concerned if you found out your children where participating in it.
may of us are 'programed' with the default answers of what right thinking, intellegent people are suposed to believe. but when you cut away the political platforms and other agendas you can see that you (and most others ) know in their hearts this behavior is wrong.
basicly we can say it as ok as long as it's these hypothetical other peoples children. but when the very behavior shows up in our own kids we have to face the fact that it makes us uncomfortable, and it makes us uncomfortable because it is wrong.
and I too believe I could have as normal a a relationship with my son as possable. and am curiouse why you think I would have a harder time with it than you. I think the fact that I'm a little more aware of how I feel on the subject might even be a help. for me my position is clear and I'd just have to work out how it effects the relationship between me and him. you'd have all of that plus, having to figure out your true feelings on the subject. I see that as giving me a bit of a head start.
edit- also you would have the extra roadblock of your son, finding resentmant and disaproval in a behavior that you had so far presented as ok. sorta changing the rules on him without warning. denying the truth about how you really feel is rarely healthy for anyone involved.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
curval, I'm no analist
Pun intended? :D
-
lol Funked....
Capt. I disagree. If you think that you would have a better relationship with a gay son because your are honest and firm in your opinion that he is immoral and is risking eternal damnation by involving himself in such a lifestyle then I have a really nice bridge I'd like to sell ya. ;)
Not understanding something does not automatically make it wrong.
I would really just rather not have to deal with it...but, if it happens at least I won't be pre-programmed into thinking one way about it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I support keeping marriage an act of faith and love between a man and a woman.
I dont care if two people of the same sex want to be lawfully united, or partnered...whatever. But I want to keep lawful marriage traditional.
I agree.
Anyway someone said "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
World is a pretty chitty place and if someone finds his/her love from someone with same gender then who are we to judge them?
-
LOL, spelling is not my strong point.
curval, while I have no sort of degree in child development, after 18 years, I have learned that one of the major positive things for raising children is consistency.
clear cut and consistent definitions of exactly what right and wrong are, combined with the knowledge that while there are consequences and punishments for wrong behavior these will not mean my love for them will be any less.
I have also learned that about the only thing worse than BS'n your kids are BS'n yourself and having your kids call you on it.
hypothetically,
how bitter do you suppose your kid would be if all his life you told him homosexuality is normal and completely ok. then he surprises you by bringing his boyfriend home to meet you (never bothered to mentioned he was gay, no big deal after all) and you get all weirded out and uncomfortable around him and the BF while you reevaluate your convictions and decide how to handle it.
if my kid where to spring something like that on me I'm fairly confident he would know exactly what to expect. (disapproval, point out it is wrong, suggest he take some time out and pray about it for awhile, followed with a hug, reassurance that I still loved him, and a basic outline of how I see this effecting the relationship between me and him [see above post])
my kid knows right from wrong and how I feel about it, he also knows that (much like god loves us) I love him and I'm willing to deal with and work through any obstacle between us, but I wont condone or pretend to approve of deviant or immoral behavior
-
Too bad.
Cause IF your kid is gay it's because he has no choice in the matter, and I would hope that he would be able to share that part of himself with you without recrimination. Because he HAS NO CHOICE.
-
I strongly doubt the whole 'born gay' thing but as I said in a previous post not being gay I can't say. but again that would be the only part that one would 'have no choice' in. you do have a choice as to if you put feelings into actions.
so even if I concede that some people might be born with gay feelings, they make a conscious decision to comit immoral acts.
and again with the adultery comparison. being a man I am born with feelings and urges for good looking women. if I where to surender my morality to these feelings and act on them, that would be immoral.
we all have various urges and feelings to do things that are not moral. most try supress them and do the right thing, some think the boundries should not apply to the things that they want to do.
-
So you woud wish a life without love on your child. Unbelievable.
-
there are other forms of love thatn physical. but if that where the only choice, then I would rather he have as little sin (or imorality) in his life as possable.
if a pedaphile is only atracted to small chilren should we let him go ahead so he can avoid a 'life without love'
-
Dowding wrote:
How anyone can equate, say, sex with a preteen girl in some Bangkok hell-hole or sex with a chicken with consensual sex between two adult men or women is absolutely beyond my understanding.
I don't believe I said anything about Bangkok or the conditions. We were talking about consensual relationships and allowing marriage. Pedophilia does not presuppose lack of consent on the part of the minor. Assume the physical relationship is consensual. Now the chicken might object (though my example was a goat). However, what about if the animal doesn't appear to mind? But obviously you must consider beastiality immoral. Good, we're moving you in the right direciton. Now address the others. Answer the question, then tell me why any of your answers are other than "Yes, marriage is okay."
-
I'm still looking for someone to answer the Sparta question. Were the Spartans all born gay, or did they choose to be gay? I find it hard to believe that someone is just predisposed to homosexuality through genetics. Guess scientists need to start searching for the gay gene.
-
hey rude jesus taught tolerance. i guess you defy your god. ooogyboogybooby thats some bad juju to be speaking bad about the ole masta' .
I dont think they know why some people choose homosexuality raub. All i know is that for some of them it isnt something they choose outright. People dont go "hmmm im 16 years old how can i increase the amount of times i get beat the **** up at school?"
and i dont think the catholic church has any credibility when it comes to condeming gays. They wont even condem child molestation.
-
sabre, minor by definition cannot give a consent.
Neither can chicken or goat.
Your comparison is way out there.
-
So did SOB start this thread to proclaim he was gay and thereby come out of the closet?
If so, Dowding's post on April 1st had much more flair, and to be honest, was much more convincing. :p :) j/king!...but not about SOB!
-
hey rude jesus taught tolerance. i guess you defy your god. ooogyboogybooby thats some bad juju to be speaking bad about the ole masta' .
as stated before tolorance of poeple who engage of immoral activities, and endorsment, or aproval of the acts themselves are completely different issue.
I haven't read a single post where anybody says they hate gays, or believe these people should be singled out for special punishment or whatever.
we just don't believe the act is moral and should not be incouraged or aproved of.
Jesus, taught forgiveness, of others not an every thing goes do whatever makes you feel good society.
-
the way i see it is that it dosnt hurt me. if two guys want to go out and get married. whatever, who cares. We dont need more laws on the books as it is. If your god thinks its so bad let it come down and say " hay guys whats going on on this planet, oh snap stop that."
next thing you know the religous right will be trying to ban porn again.
"from my cold dead hands!"
-
If two guys want to go out and get married. whatever, who cares. We dont need more laws on the books as it is.
Good point Frog. The goverment should get their hands completely out of marriage. Married people should have the same exact rights and laws as unmarried people. Marriage is a religious concept and should be defined by individual beliefs, not silly rules enacted by elected idiots.
-
damn right funked.
i may be crazy socialist when it comes to a couple issues, but for the most part im crazy libertarian.
-
God supposedly destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah, whats stopping him from destroying gays and their marriages?
He is the almighty, right?
-SW
-
i got dibs on Zeus in a fight. although Odin does have a good left hand.
-
I think some of you are confusing "tolerance" and "approval".
Seems to me most of this thread focuses on that aspect.
They aren't necessarily the same thing.
Many people "tolerate" things they personally don't "approve".
Question is, is it toleration that is sought or outright approval here?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
sabre, minor by definition cannot give a consent.
Neither can chicken or goat.
Your comparison is way out there.
Your could make the case for the chicken (though again, my inference was about a goat...what's this facination with chickens, btw?), Fd-ski, but remember, we do alot of things to our pets without their consent, so even that leaves wiggle room. However, your logic is flawed regarding the minor. The entire definition of "minor" is set by governemt, and is therefore a moral judgement enforced by government, the exact thing thing the gay marriage proponents are railing against. In some countries, age of consent is 12 years old. In one of those countries, there is a move to get that lowered to 10 years old. By "definition" of law, it was illegal for those two men in Texas to have sex in that hotel room.
And another thing, we sometimes trie minors as adults, so long as psychological testing confirms they understand the consequences of their actions as an adult. So, let's say they do a psych eval and determine Junior or Sissy understands as an adult? All clear to marry gramps! So I ask again: is it wrong to have laws preventing the different catagories I mentioned to be acknowledged via marriage, or are they deviants? Address all of them, please. You and others keep ignoring the incest and adultery question.
-
toad has a point.
i dont approve of organized religion but im not going to try and pass a law banning it.
I dont approve of gays but i tolerate them.
-
I think Toad is on track... Tolerance isn't about approval. You can disapprove all you want but the moment you start trying to pass legislation or speak out against something, that's no longer tolerance.
-
Sabre - you said paedophilia. That's a very controversial subject and if you want to make play based on it, you have to accept all connotations under that broad umbrella.
In my country, the age of consent is 16 years old. Sex with anyone under that age is considered statutory rape since the minor cannot give consent. This is assuming the older party is 18+ I believe.
I doubt a chicken, a goat, a cow or a dog is able to give consent for anything. Your argument here, like paedophilia, is moot.
Incest is a completely different thing altogether. To have healthy offspring and limit the chances of deformity it is neccessary to outlaw certain types of close related incest (although cousins can marry if I'm not mistaken).
The comparison between polygamy and gay marriage is as valid as the comparison between polygamy and heterosexual marriage. Adultery is between consenting adults and is not a criminal offence.
Tolerance and approval are different things. But not allowing gays to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple is not tolerance; that is active discrimination based on a value judgement.
-
Seems to me it has more to do with insurance and taxation breaks for married couples, than with the gay issue.
If this becomes acceptable and legal, you would be a fool not to get "married" to your room mate, even if you're not gay. And reap the financial rewards in the form of reduced insurance and taxes.:D
In other words...tax fraud and insurance fraud. Yeah, that's the ticket!!!!
Les
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Sabre - you said paedophilia. That's a very controversial subject and if you want to make play based on it, you have to accept all connotations under that broad umbrella.
In my country, the age of consent is 16 years old. Sex with anyone under that age is considered statutory rape since the minor cannot give consent. This is assuming the older party is 18+ I believe.
So what? Laws can be changed...right? Isnt that what we are debating here in the gay-rights thread? That some laws should be changed to allow the gays to do whatever the hell it is they want to do? Suppose the law was changed and set the age of consent to 8 years old. Then suppose a 50 yr old guy had sex with an 8 yr old. It would be legal...would it be right?
And that's the point. Even if we change the laws to let gays do *whatever* it will still be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Incest is a completely different thing altogether. To have healthy offspring and limit the chances of deformity it is neccessary to outlaw certain types of close related incest (although cousins can marry if I'm not mistaken).
And what the hell is this? Should the government have a law with the sole motivation to prohibit "unhealty offspring"?
Yeah...now why does that ring a bell...
-
And what the hell is this? Should the government have a law with the sole motivation to prohibit "unhealty offspring"?
I tought that law allredy existed... Theres no law against incest? djust curious...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
I tought that law allredy existed... Theres no law against incest? djust curious...
In sweden I think the formulation is "with offspring"...I'll check...
-
BrB 6:6 both with offspring or sibling... so it is illegal now yes.
-
You miss the point entirely Hortlund. You cannot compare homosexuality to paedophilia because the law concerning paedophilia revolves around consent. At what age can someone give consent to be part of sexual intercourse? At what age should the age of consent be set to protect the vulnerable being preyed upon by those that would take advantage of the impressionable? In the UK, this is 16 years old.
Two consenting adults of the same sex entering into a sexual relationship is nothing like some 50 year old raping an 8 year old girl, in terms of UK law. Maybe they do things differently in Sweden.
Trying to equate homosexual marriage to paedophilia is even more of a stretch.
And what the hell is this? Should the government have a law with the sole motivation to prohibit "unhealty offspring"?
Yes. This is something humans learned a long time ago and has been locked into our pysche ever since. The chances of a child being born disabled is increased. Scientific fact, corroborated by experiment...
... unlike the assumption that a child adopted by a gay couple will turn out abnormal.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You miss the point entirely Hortlund. You cannot compare homosexuality to paedophilia because the law concerning paedophilia revolves around consent. At what age can someone give consent to be part of sexual intercourse? At what age should the age of consent be set to protect the vulnerable being preyed upon by those that would take advantage of the impressionable? In the UK, this is 16 years old.
Two consenting adults of the same sex entering into a sexual relationship is nothing like some 50 year old raping an 8 year old girl, in terms of UK law. Maybe they do things differently in Sweden.
Trying to equate homosexual marriage to paedophilia is even more of a stretch.
[/b] Wow..all that text just because you missed my point completely. Lets try it again.
Suppose the law was changed so the age when someone can give sexual consent was set to 8 yrs old. Then suppose a 50 yr old guy had sex with a consenting 8 yr old girl. It would be legal...would it be right?
Yes. This is something humans learned a long time ago and has been locked into our pysche ever since. The chances of a child being born disabled is increased. Scientific fact, corroborated by experiment...
... unlike the assumption that a child adopted by a gay couple will turn out abnormal.
so in your opinion, as long as they dont have children, it should be ok for brothers and sisters to marry...? Since your only reason for opposing incest relations is the risk of unpure children I mean. Hey maybe they could adopt..I mean if the gays can..why not the incest-freaks?
-
some info : http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
-
Suppose the law was changed so the age when someone can give sexual consent was set to 8 yrs old. Then suppose a 50 yr old guy had sex with a consenting 8 yr old girl. It would be legal...would it be right?
Why is this example made by you even relevant in this discussion? COMPLETLY different things....
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Why is this example made by you even relevant in this discussion? COMPLETLY different things....
It is an example that just because the law might say that something is allowed, that doesnt make it right... see gay relations, marriages and adoptions...
-
It is an example that just because the law might say that something is allowed, that doesnt make it right... see gay relations, marriages and adoptions...
If an thing dont seem right to YOU, it might still be RIGHT to another person...
Its an matter of how you have been raised and what belives you have to start with..
Do we even have to tell you this stuff?
Can i have your defenition to why gay relations, marriages and adoptions are not "right"?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This thread was originally about gay-marriage and the US government under Bush contemplating making it a crime.
err, I thought it was about the pope condeming gay marriages?
To that point, hes the man who makes the rules for the catholic church, if you dont like those rules go join another religion whose rules you do like or just dont join any religion. Same as if hitech says you cant be a ho, skillless, vulchin dweeb anymore, then go fly bish:D
FWIW: I dont see any reason why gays shouldnt marry, but as for adopting kiddies, no way, jose!! Just an opinion!
-
Nah, I bet SOB just wanted some BBS fracas to read while eating corn dogs.
-
Address all of them, please. You and others keep ignoring the incest and adultery question.
Sabre, we keep ignoring those other issues because they add nothing to the debate. The issue is not whether to allow marriages to a goat or your grandfather, the issue is whether we should legalize marriges between two adults of the same sex.
My argument is that because gay people do not choose their sexual orientation, they should be allowed to marry each other, and get full benefits, just as a married man & woman do.
If there were some proof that homosexuality was a conscious choice, then I would agree with you. But it's not. And I'll go farther and bet that eventually we'll discover that it has something to do with messed up genetics.
Sabre, it's obvious that you're morally offended by gay men sodomizing each other. I am, too. The thought of that just churns my stomach.
That being said, I realize that that type of behavior is just the act of making love to someone you care about. However abhorrent it is to us, to the two people involved, it's just a way to make love.
Rude wants to "help" gays by sending them to some "de-gaying" process or program. This is also not going to work. There have been many famous examples of gay people trying to become straight by marrying hetero, and failing miserably.
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, the famous Russian composer of "1812 Overture" fame, was a gay man who tried to go straight by marrying a woman. Within 2 days, he fled the marriage and had a nervous breakdown.
It would be the same result if you or I tried to "go gay" and try fornicating with a man. I don't know about you, but nothing, and I mean nothing, could compel me to have anal or oral sex with another man. I couldn't even bring myself to kiss another man.
What is it that you are afraid of if gay marriages are legalized?
-
For being an straight guy banana, you sure have alot of knowledge about this :D
-
Originally posted by Maniac
For being an straight guy banana, you sure have alot of knowledge about this :D
Hey, I paraphrase everything that Ripsnort, uh, teaches me.
:D
-
Originally posted by Curval
Saur...I wonder how many gay people you know but have no idea that they are gay. I'm willing to bet there are a few. When/if you find that out about someone you really care about will that line you draw stay in place?
Yes the 'line' will remain. Accountability is the key here. If you cross the line, you are in the wrong, and it doesnt much matter who you are, IMO.
Hypothetically, if a friend of mine is hiding in the closet, then voices his lifestyle choice (yes, I believe its a choice) having hid it from me for X amount of years, how good of a freind could he have been? I dunno about you, but I would be questioning an aweful lot of other aspects of our friendship if I learned he was gay.
In addition to that, had I known he was gay in the first place, I wouldnt have associated with him. Since the friendship was based around who I 'thought' the person was, and that thought turned out to be false, whatever connection there might have been wasnt real in the first place.
Having a family member step out of the closet is a little more hairy, and to be honest, Im not sure how I would approach that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It is an example that just because the law might say that something is allowed, that doesnt make it right... see gay relations, marriages and adoptions...
Once again Hortlund is absolutely correct in this little tiny point that he somehow culled from the argument. Sure legality and morality can diverge. See NAZI Germany for many examples. WTG.
BTW.... your point is pointless.
We are talking about consenting adults here. Pedophilia doesn't apply.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This thread was originally about gay-marriage and the US government under Bush contemplating making it a crime.
Actually Bush advocated a law defining marriage as being between two opposite gendered adults.
This is a far piece from calling gay marriage a criminal offense. Gay marriage just would not be recognized for purposes of tax, insurance and the like. I believe that only an extreme minority would advocate imprisonment, and Bush is not part of that minority.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually Bush advocated a law defining marriage as being between two opposite gendered adults.
This is a far piece from calling gay marriage a criminal offense. Gay marriage just would not be recognized for purposes of tax, insurance and the like. I believe that only an extreme minority would advocate imprisonment, and Bush is not part of that minority.
Don't be too sure, Holden. Once the Republiclowns and the Religious Right get going, there's no telling how far down that slippery slope this country would go.
Gay pogroms, anyone?
-
This thread was originally about gay-marriage and the US government under Bush contemplating making it a crime.
nobody has sugested making it a crime (nobody in office with the power to make it happen). it is perfectly legal for gays to marry each other in some sort of social or religious ceremony.
the question is do we (U.S.) recognise a special type of mariages as legal, get the courts involved when they fall apart, give them children to raise, and basicly legaly force society in genral to except this lifestyle.
the issue isn't new discriminitory laws against gays. they will still be able to call themselves maried and anybody who finds this lifestyle ok can treat them as such. (and this does happen, wal-mart for 1 example recognises when gays say they are married and provides health care for the 'spouse')
the thing is there is a big push by gays (especially here in Oregon) to change laws to legitimize their immoral behavior.
(not illegal, immoral. some of you keep going down the 'whats legal' road. in a descusion about 'should something be legal or not'. saying 1 behavior is ok because it's legal and another not is irelivant, so yes the pediphilia and adultery comparisons are vallid. all 3 are issues of imoral behavior)
this would force others, who feel this mariages or wrong, to treat them as legitamate or be in violations of the law.
the issue is not should we make a law to restrict gays. the issue is should we make special laws making it ilegal not to treat these couples as if they are a legitamate maried couple.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
In addition to that, had I known he was gay in the first place, I wouldnt have associated with him. Since the friendship was based around who I 'thought' the person was, and that thought turned out to be false, whatever connection there might have been wasnt real in the first place.
That is so sad. When in a friendship are you supposed to tell someone that your gay? The first time you meet. 'Hi my name is x and im gay'. I certainly dont go around flaunting my heterosexuality so why should gays have to?
If i was gay and happened to befriend you. your very attitude would be good enough reason to not mention it to you. Anyway whats it to you what your friend does with his/her sex life? I mean it aint like your being asked to watch!! You know I dislike the idea of homosexuality probably as much as you do however I wouldnt stop being friends with some1 just for that. I value my friends for what they add to me and other people, not for what they do behind closed doors. Maybe if I found out that they were criminals or murderers I would have to end the friendship. Being gay certainly doesnt come into that category.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This thread was originally about gay-marriage and the US government under Bush contemplating making it a crime.
My views on these matters is simply that:
1) Marriage is a religious ceremony and the government of Man has no right to interfere.
But the government has interfered... there are legal benefits to marriage. Maybe the key is to call it "civil union" for government purposes and just leave it at that.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the thing is there is a big push by gays (especially here in Oregon) to change laws to legitimize their immoral behavior.
Immoral behavior... hehe... other states have no problem with the legality of gambling but there's revenue there so that particular "immorality" is okay.
-
Originally posted by Gremlin
That is so sad.
Come on... do I tell you your views are sad? What is that supposed to accomplish? I dont mean to make an example, but I cant help to notice that the 'Cavemen Conservatives' are making constructive arguments explaining their viewpoint and the 'Enlightened Liberals' are basically retorting with variations of "Youre dumb!"
When in a friendship are you supposed to tell someone that your gay? The first time you meet. 'Hi my name is x and im gay'. I certainly dont go around flaunting my heterosexuality so why should gays have to?
I dont flaunt my sexuality either. Its rude - if you recall one of my previous posts, I stated that I didnt want parades clogging up the streets. That basically works out to I dont want them flaunting it. There isnt a set time limit on when one should 'tell' another he or she is gay, but I cant help to think that someone could fool a 'friend' so completely. My point is that is an issue important enough, like sexual orientation, is lied about, I wouldnt really have wanted to be friends with the individual to begin with.
If i was gay and happened to befriend you. your very attitude would be good enough reason to not mention it to you.
[/b]
So Im not allowed to choose my friends based on sexual orientation, but youre allowed to choose freinds based on their convictions?
The better question would be - if you were gay and I told you I was accepting of it, then you caught me making fun or you or bashing on you behind your back, allowing you to draw the conclusion that I lied to you about my acceptance, would you remain friends with me?
Anyway whats it to you what your friend does with his/her sex life? I mean it aint like your being asked to watch!! [/b]
Its not about watching or whether or not its my business. I just dont feel confortable around gays. Im sorry, I was born that way - maybe if we march on Washington we can have 'Homophobe' replaced with 'Birth-Caused Homosexual Uncomfortability Syndrome.' Woe is me.
You know I dislike the idea of homosexuality probably as much as you do however I wouldnt stop being friends with some1 just for that. I value my friends for what they add to me and other people, not for what they do behind closed doors. Maybe if I found out that they were criminals or murderers I would have to end the friendship. Being gay certainly doesnt come into that category. [/B]
I value my friends as well, and I dont have any gay friends because I dont value gay companionship. In your words, they wouldnt be adding anything to me, they would be taking something away. Im sure there are gay people out there who are fantastic human beings, Im not disputing that, but I just dont agree with their lifestyle choice and I will not associate with them if I dont have to because of it.
In mind mind, thats no different from saying I wont associate with a coke head. I lost one friend because of drugs - tried to help him - to no avail. At that point in his life, drugs were more important to him that his friends. He would steal money from his freinds, threaten vilolence - he became a different person. Now hes a complete waste of life and I dont associate with him.
Since gays maintain that they cant be helped - in fact that there isnt even a problem, I wouldnt even bother. Sorry bud, Im sure your still a great guy, I just cant look you in the eye anymore and respect you knowing that you were bent over a chair last night.
-
Saur, I don't think he was calling you stupid. It's sad that you would end a long-term friendship over something so trivial and obvioulsy (if you didn't know about it), so far removed from why the friendship exists. Sad, ie disappointing, unfortunate, etc.
SOB
-edit- Oh, and a better quote would be this... I'm bigoted against bigots.
-
Sexual perversion is not a crime. Its an adventure.
-
Next on Geraldo:
Do societies have an obligation to determine parameters of acceptable behavior.
-
Amature... 3 in the pink and 2 in the stink.
-
Originally posted by SOB
-edit- Oh, and a better quote would be this... I'm bigoted against bigots.
that was a good one. Rigth next to Groucho's
"I refuse to be a member of any club that would have me as a member"
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Tolerance and approval are different things. But not allowing gays to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple is not tolerance; that is active discrimination based on a value judgement.
They have the exact same rights as any other individual. They can marry a person of the opposite sex.
-
Originally posted by Lance
Lol, I think this thread needs a link to the nullo story.
Well, since you asked for it... (http://www.globalapathy.com/news_comments2.asp?NewsID=84)
-
What does it matter if they get married instead of living together?
Does it prevent any of you from sleeping at night?
You can have civil unions too which dont involve priests.
If a religion is against it then they dont have to do it.
But if a religion as no problem with it and you make it illegal, then you are limiting people's religious rights.
Which is against your constitution I think.
I saw on TV Bush saying he wanted to pass a law to make it illegal.
Who is he to decide what is right and what is wrong for everybody else?
What gives him morale authority over others?
He cant prove he worships a more worthy god then anybody else.
So what gives him the right to force his views on anybody else?
I think this is narrow minded and that is the worst sin of all as far as I am concerned.
I completely disagree with him, but I respect is beliefs.
I dont go around saying to everyone that there is no god and thats the thruth because thats what I believe and neither should anyone.
Thats what freedom of religion is about, people choosing their own way without anyone telling them whats right and whats wrong based on their own morale.
Because no one can say they are more right then you are.
Its all subjective.
The number of people of believe the same thing dont have any more authority either since a million times zero equals zero.
I dont have any morale authority over anybody else so even if I made 1 million clones of myself I would still have no morale authority.
-
Just checking in here. I haven't read everything, although I will later...
I have had first hand immediate experience with a homo police officer who fought along side me, down on the concrete and behind shot up police cars, during violent arrests, during f***ing beatings, and all kinds of trouble most peeps don't have to look at.
This studmuffin cop has covered my bellybutton professionally, on a couple occasions. I broke my back smashing into a palm tree, and I was out of work for a long time. When I got out, HE picked me up from the hospital and took care of me for weeks, including cleaning my apt. and bringing me food. He is very smart. Very caring. Very people oriented.
That pretty much says it for me.
To me, you are either an prettythanghole, or you are not.
I think the law should allow agreements between homos to love one another for life, including rights of health insurance and leaving property behind when you die.
-
GS I am glad you said something about that and not me!
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
They have the exact same rights as any other individual. They can marry a person of the opposite sex.
I can't believe people still post this drivel. You don't think you summed up the debate in one little package do you?
You know that's not the issue. The issue is that a heterosexual can marry who they choose, assuming the other party is willing, and a homosexual can not.
The religous issue is moot. In the eyes of the government the contract of marriage is legal contract. Separation of church and state sees to that. Just because some religions don't hold with homosexuality doesn' mean that government showed disallow it. Your religion is your religion. It should not have any effect on how I can live my life.
As far as the "Institution of Marrage" being threatend, I don't by it. I didn't marry an institution, I married my wife. Weather or not homosexuals can marry has no bearing and cannot deminish my bond with my wife. I surprised to see that some here believe that the bond they made with their spouses is so fragile that some stranges getting married might disrupt it.
What's more, having a heterosexual marriage is no guarauntee that bond of marriage will be stronger or healthier. There are tons of homosexual bonds that are longlasting deep commitments, based on respect and love. And there are heterosexual marriages that are just garbage.
-
Originally posted by The_Shocker
Well, since you asked for it... (http://www.globalapathy.com/news_comments2.asp?NewsID=84)
ARGGHHH What the HELL?? I had to stop reading almost immideately.
Please oh please say that that story is fiction...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Once again Hortlund is absolutely correct in this little tiny point that he somehow culled from the argument. Sure legality and morality can diverge. See NAZI Germany for many examples. WTG.
BTW.... your point is pointless.
We are talking about consenting adults here. Pedophilia doesn't apply.
Doesn't it?
We're talking legal vs moral. Tolerance vs approval.
Would you be ok with your local pedophile flying to, say, south korea, or spain, where the age of consent is 13, and finding a fine young thing there with whom to share their manhood? Or maybe your son/daughter decides to fly off to spain to marry a 13 year old he/she found on the internet. Is that ok with you?
I mean, according to http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm - thats their age of consent. So it MUST be OK.
Or does that somehow strike you as just.....wrong?
Does that make you a pedophileophobe? If so, is that a bad thing?
So, we return to homosexual unions being "blessed" (ok, sanctioned) by the state. Currently, the state sanctions male-female relationships and calls it marriage, analogous to the religious ceremony of the same name. But the state does not recognize a similar homosexual union. What interest does it have in doing so? Damn, its late - I'm wandering.... just see Capt. Apathys tolerance vs approval statements above.
And to anyone who says you can't legislate morality - bullsh*t. Our morality is centered around individual rights, and we have legislated laws around that principle. But its still a morality, and its definitely legislated.
BB
PS - hiya thrawn.... :)
-
Veering off topic a little, note that "consent" is a pretty restricted concept in Spanish legislation.
For minors (from 13 to 18), it would basically mean that willing relations among minors are not a criminal offence, but any factors like:
-deceitful promises
-age difference
-economical dependence
-family relationship
and of course violence or intimidation, would void "consent".
Marriage is basically forbidden under 18. Judges can allow it sooner, but on a case by case basis.
The use of minors (under 18) as subjects of pornography or prostitution is also forbidden.
The real everyday life seems to be that if you are 20 and are going out with a 17 yrs old girl you are more or less OK, but don't do silly things like helping her escape from her parents or something akin to that, because you will be in deep **** then.
I don't recall teen pregnancy being a noticeable problem. In fact the problem here is we are getting married at 30 something and not having any kids at any age.
So no, we don't go around chasing 13 year old girls to put on our harems. They are quite busy themselves frantically chasing David Beckham or some stupid flawor the flavor of the month singer.
-
So no, we don't go around chasing 13 year old girls to put on our harems.
I don't think he meant to imply that you did, or meant to slam your laws. I believe the point trying to be made is that, technically speaking, a pedophile from the USA could hook up over the net with some little girl who has just turned 13, fly on over there and spend the night with her in a hotel.
the question being, that while that would be legal (as long as he didn't violate your list of negating conditions), would it be any more moral than finding a 13 year old here? moral and legal are not the same thing.
we do make laws regarding morality. but not everything we find immoral is illegal. we try to be as tolerant as possible with the ones that are less offensive and less tolerant with the more offensive.
pedophilia is a good example because the vast majority of us are on the same page with how immoral it is. so we can say "see how you feel about pedophilia, that is similar to how I feel about homosexuality". we can pretty much all agree that pedophilia is morally wrong, but to the thousands of degenerates who practice it, it probably looks somewhat different.
the point being, why is it ok for us to make laws concerning pedophilia, but not homosexuality? is it not ok with gays because that doesn't offend some of you? how many people have to be offended? is there a set number? I know, I know "age of consent, age of consent", before you type that in go back to the top and read the first 2 paragraphs again. repeat as necessary.
so we do, as a society, have a right (obligation) to make laws regarding morality.
but again some of you miss understand the issue. no mater how much the gay rights people want to distort it, NOBODY HAS SUGESTED OUTLAWING GAY MARAIGE. no swat team is going to raid Dave and Ted’s wedding and try and 'cure ' the degenerates. there will be no fines for performing gay marriages. what has been suggested (by bush) is an official definition of what is and isn't legally considered a marriage in this country (and pushing for that definition to be 'between 2 members of the opposite sex')
another point, the concern isn't for my marriage in particular, as stated by thrawn. it's for the institution as a whole.
and the institution is already in trouble. my son graduated highschool this spring. out of the 500+ kids in his graduating class he was the only one he knew of who’s parents where married at the time of their graduation, the only one who’s parents shared the same address. granted he didn't know every kid in that class well enough to know all of their situations, the fact that in 4 years he never ran into another kid who he found to be in the same situation as him, does say something though, doesn't it?
when I married in '84 I intended it for life, after a few years of marriage my wife tells me that with most of her friends parents being divorced she went into the marriage with the "for as long as it's fun" outlook. it wasn't until after we went through some hard times and I didn't bail out, she asked why and I told her I was here 'for better or worse', that she started looking at it as a permanent situation.
marriage is often seen as a temporary situation, or a legal decision, or an economic decision. it isn't. it's a commitment to a life long partnership in raising a family together.
the legal requiring of all to treat these obscene gay marriages as if they are the same as a real marriage is profane to many, is mockery of the institution of marriage and further confuses the issue as to what exactly you are getting into when you say "we're married".
the institution of marriage is a cornerstone of our society, and it is in danger. most would agree that, while you can find examples of exceptions on either side, children develop better in a loving environment where both parents are there and happy to be there. and marriage is the best way to accomplish that.
as divorce rates and children without marriage rates climb you see a lot more trouble with kids, and as they age trouble as adults. having your citizens develop to adulthood in a setting resembling normal is crucial to survival as a society.
and again if gays want to say they are married and go play house somewhere, nobody is trying to outlaw that. it's just a push to clearly define what a marriage is.
Edited for my horrendous spelling
-
I think lesbians should be allowed to get married if they are attractive.
I think ugly people should not be allowed to get married whether heterosexual or homosexual, because I find it disgusting to imagine them having sex.
I speak on behalf of my religion of beer, wings and naked pretty girls.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
I think lesbians should be allowed to get married if they are attractive.
Now THAT would be a great new thread topic, which two celebrity babes would you like to see together? My pick: Catherine Bell and Shania Twain.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
so we do, as a society, have a right (obligation) to make laws regarding morality.
but again some of you miss understand the issue. no mater how much the gay rights people want to distort it, NOBODY HAS SUGESTED OUTLAWING GAY MARAIGE. no swat team is going to raid Dave and Ted’s wedding and try and 'cure ' the degenerates. there will be no fines for performing gay marriages. what has been suggested (by bush) is an official definition of what is and isn't legally considered a marriage in this country (and pushing for that definition to be 'between 2 members of the opposite sex')
marriage is often seen as a temporary situation, or a legal decision, or an economic decision. it isn't. it's a commitment to a life long partnership in raising a family together.
the legal requiring of all to treat these obscene gay marriages as if they are the same as a real marriage is profane to many, is mockery of the institution of marriage and further confuses the issue as to what exactly you are getting into when you say "we're married".
Obscene in your view you should say.
What gives you the right to judge these people?
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Cant recall where did I read that? Maybe you can help? :rolleyes:
Last I checked the US government was completly separeted from religion.
If Bush pushes this law because of his religious beliefs then he is putting religion into the government.
That is not right because not everyone follows the same religion in the US.
If he does that then he is saying my religion is the right one which goes against the freedom of religion your country as in its constitution.
As long as you look at it from your biased point of view you will only see what you want to see.
Problem with that is that you cant prove you are more right then any other religion can.
So why should you make the laws?
As for commitment to marriage. Homosexuals can commit just as much as heterosexuals can. Moot point.
Im an Atheist. I think religion is load of you know what.
I dont tell you you are wrong and neither should you or anyone else.
Give them the same rights and they will be happy.
No one as to do anything they dont want either.
Some religions will refuse such marriages, others will accept them.
And if no one accepts them then they can have civil unions.
If they exist in the US of course.
I live in Quebec, we have a Civil Code.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
I think lesbians should be allowed to get married if they are attractive.
I think ugly people should not be allowed to get married whether heterosexual or homosexual, because I find it disgusting to imagine them having sex.
I speak on behalf of my religion of beer, wings and naked pretty girls.
but you got married?
-
Hardly, it would be against my religion.
-
judge not lest you be judged.
ok, so you think we should have no laws at all? if your not going to judge the offenders whats the point? the fact is we judge thousands of people in our courts every day. you are distorting the meaning. the meaning of the passage is not to be thinking you are better than others. it doesn't mean you shouldn't judge what is acceptable behavior in your society. and I'm not judging gays on their value as human beings. if you look through these last 5 pages of posts, you'll find me stating that many gays are great men. but they are great in spite of their immoral acts, not because of them.
Last I checked the US government was completly separeted from religion.
really? read a dollar some time, not one of those funny 'monopoly money' canadian dollars either, a good ol' USA dollar. constitution was founded by religious men on Christian ideals. the whole separation of church and state thing has become twisted over the years. originally meant to stop the gov't from setting a state religion (like the Church of England at the time). or to avoid people having to be members of a certain church in order to be elected. it was never intended to be interpreted in the bastardized way it's seen now, where kids get sent home for praying in school or teachers lose their jobs for wearing a cross.
that aside this is not a religious issue. it's a moral issue. just because some people don't find it immoral doesn't make it right. homosexuality has been illegal in most societies throughout history and immoral in even more. Sparta in Greece is the only one we've been able to drag up that openly approved of it and even they didn't allow them to marry (ok Sodom and Gomorrah also, but I figured that wouldn't be particularly useful in discussing this with those who don't believe the bible). you can find some one who will think just about any behavior is ok. and as mentioned many times above, pedophiles probably don't find their behavior particularly immoral, but I do and many agree with me.
As for commitment to marriage. Homosexuals can commit just as much as heterosexuals can. Moot point.
sure they can commit they are capable of doing anything any other man can do. many gays have married women in the past and stuck to their commitment. many supress urges towards immoral behavior and try to live a live as free from immorality as possible. as far as 2 men being able to commit to a marriage to each other, you're right it's a moot point, because they aren't married.
Some religions will refuse such marriages, others will accept them.
religions view this as they have always done, but what about the rights of an individual to find this immoral and refuse to except it. that’s the whole problem right there. as it is now gays can go have their 'marriage' and anyone who wants to except it can. the thing is that they are trying to change law to make it where we would all have to except their marriage. all we want is a clear definition of a traditional marriage. then those who think it's ok can except it all they want (as they do now). and those of us who don't can do our best to ignore them.
if the changes are made to have the gov't legally recognize these marriages then those who decide not to recognize them would be in legal trouble for not recognizing them and treating these people as if they had a real marriage. it takes away my ability to just tolerate or ignore gays and their immorality. it takes what was once a private perversion that I could dismiss as none of my business, and drags it out and shoves it in my face where I have to come down on one side or the other of a real social issue. and I side against it.
and if I have to be up and arguing anyway maybe I'm kinda sick of tolerating the whole open, in public, and out where my kids can see it, gay life style. this could well backfire for the gay movement here in the US. mainstream America has been doing a lot of tolerating and ignoring lately. we don't accept the life style based on immorality, but most of us do our best to ignore and tolerate It. if you refuse to let us keep on ignoring it, you might not like the decisions that come out, when you have our undivided attention.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
judge not lest you be judged.
ok, so you think we should have no laws at all? if your not going to judge the offenders whats the point? the fact is we judge thousands of people in our courts every day. you are distorting the meaning. the meaning of the passage is not to be thinking you are better than others. it doesn't mean you shouldn't judge what is acceptable behavior in your society. and I'm not judging gays on their value as human beings. if you look through these last 5 pages of posts, you'll find me stating that many gays are great men. but they are great in spite of their immoral acts, not because of them.
When did I say there should be no laws?
Oh wait I didnt.
I said you should not make laws based on your own beliefs because you dont hold any morale authority over anyone.
Just like everybody else.
Making it the law would mean that your religion is the right one which is against your constitution.
How is that fair to other religions?
Some of which might not have a problem with gay unions.
really? read a dollar some time, not one of those funny 'monopoly money' canadian dollars either, a good ol' USA dollar. constitution was founded by religious men on Christian ideals. the whole separation of church and state thing has become twisted over the years. originally meant to stop the gov't from setting a state religion (like the Church of England at the time). or to avoid people having to be members of a certain church in order to be elected. it was never intended to be interpreted in the bastardized way it's seen now, where kids get sent home for praying in school or teachers lose their jobs for wearing a cross.
You trying to insult me with the Canadian money thing?
Our money is no worse than yours so stuff it.
that aside this is not a religious issue. it's a moral issue. just because some people don't find it immoral doesn't make it right. homosexuality has been illegal in most societies throughout history and immoral in even more. Sparta in Greece is the only one we've been able to drag up that openly approved of it and even they didn't allow them to marry (ok Sodom and Gomorrah also, but I figured that wouldn't be particularly useful in discussing this with those who don't believe the bible). you can find some one who will think just about any behavior is ok. and as mentioned many times above, pedophiles probably don't find their behavior particularly immoral, but I do and many agree with me.
Neither does it make it wrong.
That was my whole point which you seem to have missed.
If you cant say its right or wrong then maybe you should allow it.
sure they can commit they are capable of doing anything any other man can do. many gays have married women in the past and stuck to their commitment. many supress urges towards immoral behavior and try to live a live as free from immorality as possible. as far as 2 men being able to commit to a marriage to each other, you're right it's a moot point, because they aren't married.
Some gay couple are commited even without marriage.
Marriage as nothing to do with commitment of a couple.
They choose to be commited or not.
Which is the whole point of what I wrote.
religions view this as they have always done, but what about the rights of an individual to find this immoral and refuse to except it. that’s the whole problem right there. as it is now gays can go have their 'marriage' and anyone who wants to except it can. the thing is that they are trying to change law to make it where we would all have to except their marriage. all we want is a clear definition of a traditional marriage. then those who think it's ok can except it all they want (as they do now). and those of us who don't can do our best to ignore them.
They want the same rights as heterosexual couple.
I call that fairness.
If you dont like it then you can still ignore it.
if the changes are made to have the gov't legally recognize these marriages then those who decide not to recognize them would be in legal trouble for not recognizing them and treating these people as if they had a real marriage. it takes away my ability to just tolerate or ignore gays and their immorality. it takes what was once a private perversion that I could dismiss as none of my business, and drags it out and shoves it in my face where I have to come down on one side or the other of a real social issue. and I side against it.
No they would not.
If a religion does not approve of it then they simply dont have to do it.
The law should say that religions have the right to do it if they want to.
Or as I wrote earlier you can have civil unions without priests.
and if I have to be up and arguing anyway maybe I'm kinda sick of tolerating the whole open, in public, and out where my kids can see it, gay life style. this could well backfire for the gay movement here in the US. mainstream America has been doing a lot of tolerating and ignoring lately. we don't accept the life style based on immorality, but most of us do our best to ignore and tolerate It. if you refuse to let us keep on ignoring it, you might not like the decisions that come out, when you have our undivided attention.
So you want to take there freedom of expression from them?
Thats very narrow minded.
Here is a bit of advice for you: Dont watch.
Your bias keeps showing up with words like immoral.
What gives you the right to say it is?
The Bible?
Why does it have such high morale authority?
Can you prove that Jesus was the son of god and not just a man?
Nope you cant.
As long as you have not proven it I will refuse your arguments because you cant prove you are more right then any other religion (including those who accept gay unions).
So why should everyone in the US have to abide by its morality?
Maybe the Greeks had it right?
I dont know and frankly I dont care much.
-
'Your bias keeps showing up with words like immoral.'
By totally accepting behavior which others find immoral, another bias reveals itself.
One of the primary functions of society is to enforce behavioral standards.
Murder is immoral, as is thievery, lying, and a host of other obviously detrimental behaviors. Many gays have said that they do not wish that lifestyle (for the want of a better term) on anyone else as it is a difficult row to hoe. Are they saying that the lifestyle is detrimental, but not as personally detrimental as denial?
But one may argue that a union between to same gender adults does not harm anyone else like thievery does.
Governmentally recognized legal unions allow certian rights and responsibilities. So, a gay couple wishes to adopt. Can anyone say with absolute certainty that this will not adversely affect a child? Of course, a hetero couple may have some behaviors that may affect the child as well, but the fact that the parents are gay will add additional turmoil to a child's life.
The reason that this is a hot topic is that it should be. We should tread carefully, as a child’s life could be in the balance. The strongest law we have is the law of unintended consequences.
-
That would explain your upbringing.
-
I never wrote about them adopting children now did I?
Anyway I dont intend to touch that subject with a 10' pole. :D
-
Originally posted by type_char
That would explain your upbringing.
Who is this comment for? :confused:
-
Originally posted by banana
Why is it that homo-phobes always focus on the sex act exclusively?.....
To be honest, the thought of a man sticking his noodle into the anus of another man gives me the heebie-jeebies, but what business is it of mine what they do in private?
Does this not make you a homo-phobe by definition banana? LOL :D
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Who is this comment for? :confused:
Was just joking with Holden. He struck me as a wise man, was just wondering if he also had a sense of humor. Actually I read everything Mr Holden prints, it makes me smarter like listening to classical music while I do tai bo..
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
I never wrote about them adopting children now did I?
Anyway I dont intend to touch that subject with a 10' pole. :D
Well, I'm afraid you'll have to. And that is precisely the whole point of all of this.
Once gay marriages are legal and recognized by the state, you can't make them any different from hetero marriages. By the definition. Thus, all the rights, priviledges and obligations of the hetero marriage will automatically apply to the gay marriage as well.
In practice, you'll just have to drop an adjective (gay/hetero/etc...) marriage. Marriage is marriage regardless of the participants. Just like right now, we do not have legal distinctions between, say, a midget marriage, an interracial marriage, a 20 year old/80 year old marriage... Once a couple legally marries, they get EVERYTHING, with not buts, maybes and any further qualifications.
A marriage is not a piece of paper. If it was, the gay couples would just print their own.
They do not want a certificate, they want a full recognition enforced by the power of state if necessary.
-
no sense of humor at all.. hence the moniker.
-
Well.. gays raise children today... without the benefit of state recognition...
Gay parents is better than no parents.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well.. gays raise children today... without the benefit of state recognition...
True, and I can see a number of scenarios here
* a gay person stil "n a closet" publicly living a hetero life
* a biological parent who has decided to come out of the closet, but still retains a parental rights
* an openly gay person gaining a custody of a child after the fact
they are all different cases. Some of them avoidable some of them not.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Gay parents is better than no parents.
I really can't contibute to this statement anything more than my gut feeling, so I'll refrain.
-
'Gay parents are better than no parents' .. Sandman
If I were to decide an adoption and the kid was locked in the basement or drowned in the bathtub, I don't believe I could easily brush that off.
Parents who qualify the natural way do not have to pass rigorously high standards. If I were a judge making decisions on who is qualified to adopt, I doubt half the parents I see in shopping malls would qualify....
I would think that sexual orientation of the parents should be able to enter the mix for the decision. Just one of the many facets decided on a case by case.
But to write a law prohibiting the judge from contemplating with that data in mind, (and that is what I believe fully sanctioned marriage would mandate) I think that may be stepping just a bit too far.
-
Originally posted by mietla
True, and I can see a number of scenarios here
* a gay person stil "n a closet" publicly living a hetero life
* a biological parent who has decided to come out of the closet, but still retains a parental rights
* an openly gay person gaining a custody of a child after the fact
[/B]
I don't see the point of making any distinction... sexual preference should be irrelevant, IMHO.
-
They are different cases.
In case #1 it is pretty much certain that the gay behavior will be carefully hidden from children. Even if a husband or a wife has a lover on a side and a spouse knows about it, it is very unlikely that this second life will be exposed to children. The kid can learn at the age of 20 or 30 that his parent was/is gay, but buy this time the reaciotn will be: "No ****, I had no idea".
In a case #2, the child may or may not know, but again, it is unlikely that it will be exposed to the "nitty-gritty" of the gay parent relationship. And again, later in life the reaction can be, "Yeah, I had a feeling all along"
In a case #3, the kid is in a thick of it. Not only does he/she know, but she/he takes it a perfectly normal and expected. As a matter of fact I would not be surprised if the kid was questioning a hetero relationships of his friends' parents. He just does not know any any other way.
You can argue that this is bad or good. You can even argue, that is does not even matter. I have my opinion (pretty strong at that), but no more, just an opinion.
I just made three distinct case to illustrate the difference, but obviously real life offers a spectrum, probably even extending what I've considered extremes.
-
Been away from the boards for a few days, but I’m not surprised this issue is still going. Remember, this thread is about whether gay marriages should be sanctioned by the state, not about making them illegal. Let’s be clear on one thing. Most of our laws (except those that relate to safety) are based on what society thinks is moral. Morality is not the sole domain of the religious. All of you, every single one of you, have a moral code, whether it has its foundation in religious teaching or simply what you were taught by your parents. To say we shouldn’t legislate morality is ludicrous. Right now, we have laws against incest, pedophilia, beastiality, bigamy, polygamy, and (in a few states here and countries overseas) sodomy. ALL of these were created based on what we as a society thought was moral, at least at the time. Yes, there were practical reasons for some of them, such as incest, but the bottom line in deciding was our morality.
Those who are for making marriage between homosexuals legal do so with arguments that could easily extend to the other categories of behavior I’ve mentioned. Incest? What two consenting adults to in private is none of our concern, right? “But they could have deformed children, so it’s different,” you say. What if one or both get “fixed” so they can’t? So, you have no reasonable argument against legalizing incestuous marriage. It should be okay, right? Laws against incest were made back before there was birth control and abortion, after all. And many great cultures of the past allowed it, especially in the case of maintaining pure bloodlines.
Pedophilia? Well, it’s only pedophilia because law defines the legal age of consent at some arbitrary value, based on society’s moral view. Change the legal age and it’s not pedophilia, at least in the legal sense. Consent? I had a science teacher in high school that certainly would have had the consent of most of the guys in my science class! She was a fox!
What about bigamy/polygamy? I mean, after all, what consenting adults do in private is up to them, and none of government’s business. It’s not against the law in most states here in the US to have a trio, so why can’t the three/four/five/six of them get married. They all love each other deeply, and deserve the same rights as monogamous heterosexual couples, right? So long as they can afford it, what’s the big deal?
Adultery? Well, it’s not a crime, but it is recognized as a civil offense in many states (those without no-fault divorce). Do you believe it is right or wrong? If it is wrong, do you support the right of one party to divorce with prejudice a spouse that cheats on their partner? Should we give some kind of legal union to a married person and their “other” flame? I mean, after all, if they truly love each other…er…others.
Beastiality? This one isn’t about legalizing marriage between a person and an animal, but we’re certainly moving in that direction. Did you know there is at least one state in the US that has declared that pets are not property, but “companions”? You’re not a “pet owner” anymore, but a “caretaker” now. “It’s about consent,” you say? Really? Do you have a pet dog or cat that you’ve had spade or neutered? Did you have their consent first? Did you get that cow’s okay before the slaughterhouse worker bashed it’s brains in and cut it up into entrée-sized chunks, sent it to your store so you could subject it to flame and eat it? No? Didn’t think so. So why is it illegal, when murdering the animal isn’t? The bottom line is that you think it’s morally wrong, and that’s why you’re against it. Face it. Oh, and many supposed great civilizations of the past allowed human-animal sex.
The bottom line is, marriage should be between a man and a woman. Extending that legal status to same-sex couples opens the door to a whole host of problems, and accelerates the further erosion of our society. Where will it stop?
-
well said Sabre
-
Thanks, Cap. I've enjoyed your discourse as well.
-
Originally posted by Curval
It wasn't your first post that concerned me...it was the progression from "sharing" to something akin to a Jerry Falwell stance.
Allow me to demonstrate:
"Sharing" turned into this....
"I'm not good with leaving folks in places which ultimately destroy them....as to documented cases, I have no idea....my point was only that to live outside of Gods will for any of us, myself included, is to slowly destroy who God created us to be."
or
"is it right that two men sleep together or is there no right or wrong? Perversion cool with everyone....is it all free? Should our children be encouraged to accept whatever lifstyle a person chooses for themselves, irregardless of the harm it brings to a society?"
I mean...YIKES man.
Curv....
Sorry my stance offends you, but I don't believe homosexuality is ok....I believe what God's word says of it.
Your friend is a fine person Im sure...still, according to God's word, it's a sin and is wrong.
Ya see, someday God will judge this earth of ours and it won't be our convenient and comfortable morality, or what sounds right to us that will matter.
It's our nature to justify our behavior....why should we want to believe that anything we do would bring death....that doesn't feel good and isn't comfortable. Homosexuality is no worse in Gods eyes than adultery or promiscuity or stealing....all have sinned and fallen short of Gods glory.
Now that might not feel good to any of us, but does that change the truth only becuase it's inconvenient or uncomfortable?
Remember, I said it's the lifestyle that I detest, not the person. Of course, you do not share my faith so this is really a waste of virtual ink I suppose:)
Cyas Up!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
How anyone can equate, say, sex with a preteen girl in some Bangkok hell-hole or sex with a chicken with consensual sex between two adult men or women is absolutely beyond my understanding.
I'm assuming you mean this in a 'go to hell, do not collect 200 pounds' sort of destruction. So a guy, like Curval describes, who devotes his life to helping others is condemned to share eternity with mass murderers and Budweiser drinkers because of where he put his nob on an evening?
Like I told Curval....Gods word to you is just a book...this really isn't worth the virtual ink....besides, you'll believe what you want. Just remember, God will not be mocked...by you or myself. Your free to make your own choices...I'm not suprised in the least to have you or anyone else view me as peculiar or wrong...it's how it's supposed to be.
-
hey rude im god and i say i dont give a damn.
prove im wrong.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
im god.
prove im wrong.
There is no way God could make it into the FBD's.
-
He posted nekkid pics of Mary. By charter, we had to let him in.
SOB
-
Theres a thing I don't understand with gays.. why do they want marriage?
Can't they be gays without marriage... what sort of magic thing this marriage is?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Curv....
Sorry my stance offends you, but I don't believe homosexuality is ok....I believe what God's word says of it.
Your friend is a fine person Im sure...still, according to God's word, it's a sin and is wrong.
Ya see, someday God will judge this earth of ours and it won't be our convenient and comfortable morality, or what sounds right to us that will matter.
It's our nature to justify our behavior....why should we want to believe that anything we do would bring death....that doesn't feel good and isn't comfortable. Homosexuality is no worse in Gods eyes than adultery or promiscuity or stealing....all have sinned and fallen short of Gods glory.
Now that might not feel good to any of us, but does that change the truth only becuase it's inconvenient or uncomfortable?
Remember, I said it's the lifestyle that I detest, not the person. Of course, you do not share my faith so this is really a waste of virtual ink I suppose:)
Cyas Up!
You have the right to believe what you want.
But you dont have the right to tell others that something is wrong because your religion says it is.
If Bush passes is law then you are in effect telling other religions who dont have a problem with gay unions that they are wrong.
Freedom of religion is in your constitution.
What gives POTUS the right to decide for others what is right and what is wrong according to is beliefs?
Can he prove is beliefs are more right then someone else?
No he cant, so he as no morale authority just like every single person on this planet.
So why should he decide what is right and what is wrong?
Just something for you to think about.
-
first, which religion is ok with homosexual acts?
second, as far as I am aware of Canada is the only country in the history of the world that recognizes gay marriage (are there others? anybody know of any others) if there are others there aren't many. the idea that homsexuality is immoral predates Christianity by a few thousand years at least, so I don't see how you keep coming back to this being a Christian ideal being inforced on other religions.
and again it's not a religious issue it's a moral one.
do you find pedophilia immoral?
adultery immoral?
incest?
bestiality?
necrophilia?
where do YOU draw the line? you keep on saying that we have no right to draw the line at gay marriages. no right to say we tolorate the deviant behavior but this is to far, we will not sanction it and give it the aproval of the gov't.
so I'm asking you. which of the above behaviors are offensive to you? just list immoral or ok after each of the items on the list. I'm very curious to see where you draw the line (morally)? are all of the above behaviors ok, and worthy of aproval by the state.do you draw the line anywhere?
should pedophiles be allowed to marry children? incest, should brother and sister be allowed to wed? how about the necros, should they be allowed to marry a corpse if they find one they truly love?
so where is your line that you feel we shouldn't cross as a society
-
Fishu, health, insurance and other benifits extend to spouse and kids. That's the 'magic'.
Mine is Apathy.
Taboo predates christianity?
Yeah Apathy, those Greeks rarely practiced homosexuality. Only during the week and everyone involved in the army (it was required in sparta) and sometimes on weekends. That's practically never.
The line we should not cross is making political decisions that would prevent two hot chicks from having sex.
-
should pedophiles be allowed to marry children? incest, should brother and sister be allowed to wed? how about the necros, should they be allowed to marry a corpse if they find one they truly love? - Capt. Apathy
I don't see any problem with male necrophiliacs being allowed to marry female cadavers that were over the age of 18 at the time of death. And while performing cunilingus or analingus on a cadaver may seem filthy to you, remember that what goes on in the marital bed is none of our business.
-
yeah we mentioned the Sparta thing a couple times above. most societies have found it immoral though and even the Greeks didn't allow marriage. the Spartans did encourage gay sex (as a means to control soldiers), but when they married they married women.
the point I was making is that the idea of gay sex acts being immoral predates the birth of Christ. which would make the argument that this is a religious issue ridiculous
-
Rude,
By your definition God will judge all of us and in that judgement we will either go to heaven or hell.
So, lets take a murderer who has raped and mutilated a number of his victims. He gets caught and goes to jail. In jail he finds Christ.
Judgement day comes.
My friend, who has devoted his life to helping people and who has saved thousands of children from abusive parents goes to hell because during his life he committed acts of sexual pleasure with another man.
But, the murderer who found Christ at the last second goes to heaven.
If THAT is what your version of God is like I will not buy into it.
Apathy...Sabre tried that silliness with pedophilia etc. already. He has been responded to adequately already, there is nothing more I can add to the points already made.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Fishu, health, insurance and other benifits extend to spouse and kids. That's the 'magic'.
bums.
-
Homophobia predates christianity, of course. Predates theology that a religion as young as christianity is based upon? Hardly.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
But you dont have the right to tell others that something is wrong because your religion says it is.
Sure you do!
That's what this "free speech" thingie is all about.
Now, you personally can tell them anything you want.
Trying to personally FORCE them to do or not do something is a different matter.
As for laws... those are laws. The representatives of all the people pass them and everyone is expected to obey them.
Obviously, expectations are often unrealistic; take speed limit laws for instance.
While one may or may not agree with the law, the law remains the law until the representatives of all the people make changes.
Again, this thread seems much more about approval than tolerance.
In our everyday lives, all of us tolerate some thing or things we don't really "approve".
-
BEST O'CLUB THREAD EVER! SOB, YOU RULE!
-
...didn't want to edit my last post, just wanted to add that I am not "offended" by your stance at all, Rude. We all have our opinions and beliefs and I don't hold it against you at all.
I would only comment that I am disappointed that being "born again" seems to mean that you are born again into the same old rhetoric and antiquated mode of thought as it relates to this issue.
-
Apathy...Sabre tried that silliness with pedophilia etc. already. He has been responded to adequately already, there is nothing more I can add to the points already made.
actually it's not silliness at all. it was ignored before and it's being ignored again.
all I'm asking is for you or avro1 or one of the others who is so outspoken on that point of veiw, to just go down that list of other perversions and say if they think we should consider these behaviors immoral in our society or not.
the responce so far has been mostly to the fact that you don't see it as relivant. I do, so go ahead, take a minute and just answer the questions. surely your position is well thought out enough that you can answer a couple direct questions with direct answers without it all falling apart?
-
You are trying to put my friend in the same category as a pedophile (which he has spent his lfe fighting), an adulterer (which he isn't..he has lived with the same guy for about 30-40 years), a person who commits incest, bestiality or a necrophiliac.
I won't dignify it with a response.
-
what this thread needs is a lueftwhine.
hey htc the Ta-152 is obviously undermodeled. I tried to make a vtol takeoff the other day and your porked flight model laughed at me!!!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sure you do!
That's what this "free speech" thingie is all about.
Now, you personally can tell them anything you want.
Trying to personally FORCE them to do or not do something is a different matter.
As for laws... those are laws. The representatives of all the people pass them and everyone is expected to obey them.
Obviously, expectations are often unrealistic; take speed limit laws for instance.
While one may or may not agree with the law, the law remains the law until the representatives of all the people make changes.
Again, this thread seems much more about approval than tolerance.
In our everyday lives, all of us tolerate some thing or things we don't really "approve".
The problem is that Bush is trying to push this law because of is personnal beliefs.
He as no right to decide what is right and what is wrong just because he thinks its wrong.
That would be imposing is morality on others.
Which limits there religious rights.
Which is why freedom of religion is in the constitution.
It is unconstitutionnal to impose religion on others therefore Bush cannot impose is morality on others.
How much more explaining do you need?
People use to believe that the earth was flat.
Last I checked it never was. :D
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
The problem is that Bush is trying to push this law because of is personnal beliefs.
Jeez, Avro.. I DO hate to be the one to break this to you...
but "special interest groups" try to push laws because of their personal beliefs" all the time. Probably in every country in the world. Some of these groups push liberal causes, some push conservative causes, some push middle of the road causes.
I mean, here you are in this thread, pushing YOUR personal belief, eh?
Pretty comon thing.
Originally posted by AVRO1
He as no right to decide what is right and what is wrong just because he thinks its wrong.
Sure he does! It's HIS opinion. He made a comment, not a law. See... just like YOU do here, he gets to make comments that reflect HIS personal beliefs. Now, what he says gets more attention than this thread but that's the way it goes with Presidents and National Leaders.
You're not going to dispute that he has a right to his own opinion, just like you have a right to yours?
Originally posted by AVRO1
That would be imposing is morality on others.
Horse poop. It's expressing his personal views, just like you just did.
Originally posted by AVRO1
Which limits there religious rights.
Which is why freedom of religion is in the constitution.
It is unconstitutionnal to impose religion on others therefore Bush cannot impose is morality on others.
Take a deep breath. Try not to hyperventilate.
He didn't limit anyone's rights. He VOICED HIS PERSONAL OPINION.
He limited no one's rights.
The Constitution remains unchanged. It's exactly the same now as it was before he spoke.
He imposed no morality on anyone. He merely said what he personally believed.
Here, once again, is the huge gap between perception and reality. Some of those taking the "liberal" view in this debate will not allow others the freedom to hold a different opinion. I must admit, it does make me smile.
Bush has every right to believe differently than you do... and to express those views.
Like I said, it's that "freedom of speech" thingie...... there's so many that love it, unless someone is saying something they don't agree with.
Obviously, there's a huge number of folks that have no clue that it means the "other side" gets to speak as well. :D
Originally posted by AVRO1
How much more explaining do you need?
None. I didn't need any to begin with. You see, I'm not the one that has trouble distinguishing the difference between a President explaining his personal beliefs and the Congress passing a law.
-
I won't dignify it with a response
I think you wont answer because you are smart enough to know that the only difference between the all these acts is that you aren't offended (except for that one post where it kinda slipped out that maybe you aren't as ok with the whole gay thing as you like to tell yourself) by the gay issue but you find the others offensive and/or immoral.
so go ahead and avoid answering again, I'm fairly sure what your answers would be so I'll go on ahead to my follow-up question.
assuming that your position is (and from other posts I'm fairly confident I can guess reasonably accurately, and I'll completely avoid the what is legal what should be legal issue) that
1. homosexual acts & marriage is ok
2. pedophilia and adults marrying children is immoral
3. adultery, and adulterers being allowed to have the rights of married people in their 'on the side' relationship is immoral
4. incest and incestuous marriage is immoral
5. bestiality and people marrying animals is immoral
6. necrophilia and marrying corpses is immoral
did I estimate correctly? if I was wrong on any of the above 6 please correct me.
so on to the next point. what is the difference between #1 and #2-6? the only consistent difference I see is that you find #1 ok and the rest are immoral in your opinion (again please correct me if I'm wrong)
so my question is how do you decide which is on the ok side of the line and which is on the other? is gay ok just because you happen to know a gay guy, and are unable to differentiate between the concept of immoral acts and immoral people (good people involved in bad acts).
or is it ok because you have the media and gays telling you day in and day out, that if you don't approve of gay sex and marriage that you are no better than your average clan member or the pieces of toejam who killed that Sheppard kid? are you unable to see how someone can disapprove of an activity without hating the people involved in it.
but the main question is why is the place that you draw the moral line any more valid than mine?
why do I have to be a bigot or religious wacko to draw the line to include homosexuality as immoral.
but drawing the line at say incest is still a completely enlightened place to do it.
personally I think most of the people who are 'ok' with the whole gay marriage thing are just very well programmed, they have this knee-jerk response where they automatically say it's ok because that’s the PC answer. but when they really look at the issue and imagine it effecting their family, their 'sure moral footing' crumbles from beneath them.
edited- again for my spelling :(
-
personally I think most of the people who are 'ok' with the whole gay marriage thing are just very well programmed, they have this knee-jerk response where they automatically say it's ok because that’s the PC answer. but when they really look at the issue and imagine it effecting their family, their 'sure moral footing' crumbles from beneath them. - Capt. Apathy
Actually, I think its just the opposite. In fact, imagining the issue effecting my family personally really crystalizes the issue for me. I am certain that I would support a gay child in having a socially accepted and legally binding union with someone they love.
I was a chauvanist until I had daughters. Now I'm not. And in the past I never saw homos as being quite human until I became friends with one long before learning he was gay. In that way I found out that you cannot paint all homos with the same brush.
If I had a gay child I would most certainly love and support that child in his/her pursuit of happiness, including the right to take part in a socially accepted and legally binding institution that defines their relationship with someone who they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.
I think the way you flop on this issue depends on whether you think gays have any choice in being gay ... and whether you believe in God and if so, whether you think God will bless a homosexual union. If you don't believe in God, it probablly isn't much of an issue.
Personally, I think any public committment between two people serves to stabilize society, and I think ALL people have the right to commit to each other... I think the gays legally have a case, and sooner or later its gonna happen.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
personally I think most of the people who are 'ok' with the whole gay marriage thing are just very well programmed, they have this knee-jerk response where they automatically say it's ok because that’s the PC answer. but when they really look at the issue and imagine it effecting their family, their 'sure moral footing' crumbles from beneath them.
LOL, somehow I've never been thought of by anyone I know as anything close to being "PC". Actually, I think it's OK for homos to marry because it doesn't effect me and I'm not an prettythanghole. They want to committ to a loving, long-term relationship and reap the tax benefits that come along with that. Simple enough. They're willing to committ to each other in the same way that any hetero couple would, and they should be extended the same benefits.
SOB
BTW...I'm not sure why it matters, but it wouldn't bother me in the least if someone in my family was gay. If it makes 'em happy, then more power to 'em.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Jeez, Avro.. I DO hate to be the one to break this to you...
but "special interest groups" try to push laws because of their personal beliefs" all the time. Probably in every country in the world. Some of these groups push liberal causes, some push conservative causes, some push middle of the road causes.
I mean, here you are in this thread, pushing YOUR personal belief, eh?
Pretty comon thing.
Sure he does! It's HIS opinion. He made a comment, not a law. See... just like YOU do here, he gets to make comments that reflect HIS personal beliefs. Now, what he says gets more attention than this thread but that's the way it goes with Presidents and National Leaders.
You're not going to dispute that he has a right to his own opinion, just like you have a right to yours?
Horse poop. It's expressing his personal views, just like you just did.
Take a deep breath. Try not to hyperventilate.
He didn't limit anyone's rights. He VOICED HIS PERSONAL OPINION.
He limited no one's rights.
The Constitution remains unchanged. It's exactly the same now as it was before he spoke.
He imposed no morality on anyone. He merely said what he personally believed.
Here, once again, is the huge gap between perception and reality. Some of those taking the "liberal" view in this debate will not allow others the freedom to hold a different opinion. I must admit, it does make me smile.
Bush has every right to believe differently than you do... and to express those views.
Like I said, it's that "freedom of speech" thingie...... there's so many that love it, unless someone is saying something they don't agree with.
Obviously, there's a huge number of folks that have no clue that it means the "other side" gets to speak as well. :D
None. I didn't need any to begin with. You see, I'm not the one that has trouble distinguishing the difference between a President explaining his personal beliefs and the Congress passing a law.
I know about special interest groups you know. :rolleyes:
What I saw on TV was Bush who seemed to be saying he would make a law that marriage as to be the way he sees it.
Maybe I heard wrong though.
That would be wrong because some religion might think its ok and then the law would tell them its wrong.
Which is imposing morality on someone because of what you believe.
Which IMO goes against freedom of religion.
Thats all I was saying so take a deep breath yourself.
I never said Bush didnt have the right to voice his opinion.
The only thing I have a problem with in this thread is people telling its immoral because they believe it is.
I dont see any reason why they have morale authority over me so why should I listen to them?
I dont have any secret agenda, im not gay and I dont know any of them either.
I just think giving them equal rights sounds logical.
They are human too, so why should they have less rights then I do?
-
7 pages of posts and none on the pro gay side of the argument can explain why, of the 6 degenerate acts listed, homosexuality is ok but the others are not.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
7 pages of posts and none on the pro gay side of the argument can explain why, of the 6 degenerate acts listed, homosexuality is ok but the others are not.
That's because it's a silly argument.
Keep the laws simple... Keep the age of consent at eighteen and remove all consensual crimes. If someone takes advantage of another below the age of consent, fine... charge them.
Marriage as a "holy institution" can be just that. It's not diminished by civil unions of people sharing the same sex. Both could and should share the same legal benefits. As far as the courts and the banks are concerned, marriage is a legal arrangement... period. Adultery is defined as sex outside of marriage. So... it's immoral to have sex with another consenting adult? Bull****...
Incest... Don't know how this even entered into the discussion. It's irrelevant. Certainly, it's repugnant to westerners, but there are other cultures that don't view it in the same way. Hawaiian history comes to mind... I'm not into it, but if they're consenting adults, I could not care less.
Bestiality... IMHO, it's cruelty to the animal. For this reason alone, it should be illegal.
Necrophilia... This an even more bizarre argument than incest. Again... not all the parties are consenting to this.
The list smacks of a typical slippery slope type argument. Keep in mind the mechanics... male homosexuals engage in something many heteros do as well... anal and oral sex...
As long as the participants are consenting adults, I don't see the big deal. I also don't see why two (or more) people cannot enter a civil partnership, that affords them all of the legal benefits of committed adults regardless of their sexual preference.
-
You don't have to "approve" of homosexuality to see that gays are human beings that may have a very good legal case for institutionalizing their relationships the way the rest of us do.
As far as the religious aspect of gay marriage is concerned, remember that many gays believe in God and are involved in organized religion. They believe that God will bless their unions.
Who are YOU to tell them their beliefs are wrong, and yours are right?
-
It is not possible to marry a cadaver, no matter how good it looks to you. Why? Our legislative bodies have written laws that have the effect of making it a crime.
The same with incest, pedophilia and the other examples you gave.
and thats the point whaere your argument falls apart. it makes no sense to say "it's not the same thing because we have laws, against these" when dicusing what the law should be.
I'd also like to point out that so far gay marriage is not recognised in the US, and in many states homosexual acts are in fact ilegal also. so the idea that necrophilia, pedophilia, and incest are different because we have laws against them just doesn't hold up.
US law doesn't recognise gay marriage (doesn't ban having a cerimony or writing a partnership contract), the push is not to make something that is legal ilegal, the push is to clearly define what is meant by marriage, and make that deffinition the meaning we use today, so that it will be harder for people to change that deffinition, in the future.
I'm not "pro-gay." I do not wish to associate with most gay people.
well here we don't agree. I am not anti-gay (person) but I am anti-gay(the act). I have no problem associating with, talking to or doing bussiness with most gay people (I don't dislike any hire percentage of known gays I meet than I do people as a whole).
-
hey capt. people should do whatever the hell they want to do behind closed doors as long they agree to it and noone is under 17. because if your underage your a moron that dosnt make good decisions.
stop being so jealous of gays capt. its turning me on.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
7 pages of posts and none on the pro gay side of the argument can explain why, of the 6 degenerate acts listed, homosexuality is ok but the others are not.
The reason why I did not answer is because I dont find it relavent to the discussion.
But here I go:
Necrophilia: Can a body give consent?
No, so its not relavent.
Pedophilia: Can underaged kids give consent?
No, so its not relavent.
Bestiality: Can an animal give consent?
No, so its not relavent.
Hurting an animal is also cruel like Sandman_SBM said.
Which is immoral.
Adultery: If some people dont mind sharing then thats fine with me.
I dont have a problem with someone marrying more then one person if everyone agrees.
I have heard of mormons being prosecuted for it.
Incest: What happens between 2 consenting adults is none of my business.
The victims here are the children with 47 chromosomes.
As long as they dont have any children there is no victim.
If there is no victim then I have no problem with it.
And you did not answer my questions either.
I am proud of Canada for allowing gay unions.
Not because I have any interest in the subject but because:
It shows that we are a modern society that can accept people for who they are.
It shows that we do not judge people based on their sexual preferences.
It gives them the same rights as every other citizens.
It shows the world that we are open minded. :cool:
I am Canadian and damn proud of it.
-
A gallant effort, Capt Apathy, but it would seem they're simply caught in their circular logic to understand.
"Gays should be able to marry, same as straight couples!" they shout.
"What about these other types of relationships?" we ask. "Do you consider them immoral, or should they be allowed to marry too?"
"There's no comparison. Those things are illegal," they thunder back. "And There's no consent!"
"But, there's only no consent because the law says there isn't. Are they immoral, then?"
"Er, no, they're just illegal."
"But why are they illegal? What about the laws against homosexuality in some states?"
"Your just a right-wing, religious, gay-hating bigot!"
I've got another question, though. What is the purpose of the legal recognition of marriage? What social reason was behind its creation, and perpetuation thoughout history? Hint: it had nothing to do with whether the two people involved were in love (in many cases, love had nothing to do with who married who). Simply being in love is no reason to extend legal status to gays, incest couples, pedophiles, etc.
I've noticed that most of you pro-gay-marriage folks won't say these other acts are immoral (with the possible exception of beastiallity, ignoring the fact that we do all kinds of things to animals without their consent). I suspect its because as soon as you say something is immoral, you're forced to confront your own circular reasoning on the gay issue.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
What I saw on TV was Bush who seemed to be saying he would make a law that marriage as to be the way he sees it.
Maybe I heard wrong though.
No, you just obviously don't understand how the US governement works. The Executive Branch... the President.. .does not make law. The Legislative Branch, comprised of the House and the Senate, propose and pass laws.
Originally posted by AVRO1
Which is imposing morality on someone because of what you believe.
This is what I find so funny. You speak your mind, expressing what you believe and you are attempting to sway people to your opinion. That's a good thing, right?
Bush speaks his mind, expressing what he believes and he's attempting to sway people to his opinion.
But that's "imposing morality". :D Too funny.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not "pro-gay." I do not wish to associate with most gay people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well here we don't agree. I am not anti-gay (person) but I am anti-gay(the act). I have no problem associating with, talking to or doing bussiness with most gay people (I don't dislike any hire percentage of known gays I meet than I do people as a whole). -Capt. Apathy
__________________
Captain Apathy, I arrested over 100 homos in one two month period working undercover with a "wire" taped to me. When you are new in the Det. Bureau you have to do the studmuffin detail in the parks. If you are successful, it makes you look good. Most arrests are for exposure/lewd-lascivious/ battery. I did it as long as I could until I got "used up". Its really a pathetic, rotten, crumby job. I had to learn the signals to use when cruising public places for homo sex to make the arrests. I got "tuned in." You and I can go out cruising, and I will see all kinds of toejam going on that you probably wouldn't even notice. Of course, not all gays are like that though.
I don't have anything against everyday low profile gays. I just don't particulary care to hang around gays who are out of the closet. Maybe its due to my experiences. As far as my good friend who is gay, well he feels more like a brother to me. And we never talk about it except indirectly. He has had the same male live in partner for years now.
One thing I will give you Capt. Apathy, is that the people who are pushing for gay marriage, the gay organizations and gay attorneys are not people I care for at all, in general. I really dislike aggressive homosexuals.
But for the life of me, I don't think I can come up with a legal justification for denying them the right to their own version of marriage. Can you?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
"But why are they illegal? What about the laws against homosexuality in some states?"
Why was slavery legal? Why is illegal now.
Just because there is a law doesn't mean its just or moral one. Perhaps it was concidered so at the time of it inception. But like with slavery, people are becoming more enlightend and realised that homosexuals marriages are coming to pass.
-
But for the life of me, I don't think I can come up with a legal justification for denying them the right to their own version of marriage. Can you?
well the legal precedent is that marriage has always been interpreted to mean 'between one man and one women'. and aside from what is actually written as law our laws are also based on precedent (how we have dealt with or what the courts have decided on similar issues in the past). various other variations on marriage have all been shot down. (polygamy, bigamy, with bigamy actually being a crime. while polygamy and gay marriage are just ignored by the gov't and not recognized as a marriage)
some of the polygamist groups n Utah have been trying to get their marriages recognised for a hundred years or so. if we refuse to expand our view on marriage to take in what these people want it to mean, then why should the gays get special treatment?
btw- gunthr, about your job. if you ever wanted to make someone hate gays, that would probably be the way to do it. I couldn't imagine making a living like that.
-
Many if not most of the arguments are based on a notion of "consent". What exactly is consent?
A clear "yes, I do want to participate please do it, I beg of you"?
"well, I guess so.."?
Does is have to be verbal (or even perhaps written), or will the body language suffice?
What about the NO answer. How strong does is have to be? A slap on a face? a push? a verbal no?
What about silence? Is it yes or no? Let's say the active side phrases the "offer" as:
"let me know if you want me to stop", does silence mean consent?
Can you change your mind after the fact? What's the "grace period"?
I do not mean to stirr the pot here (obviously I am, but that is not my intention), I just really think we have a problem with a definition of consent.
I know about all these college' "codes of conduct", but can the lawyer amongst us give a legal definition of consent?
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, you just obviously don't understand how the US governement works. The Executive Branch... the President.. .does not make law. The Legislative Branch, comprised of the House and the Senate, propose and pass laws.
This is what I find so funny. You speak your mind, expressing what you believe and you are attempting to sway people to your opinion. That's a good thing, right?
Bush speaks his mind, expressing what he believes and he's attempting to sway people to his opinion.
But that's "imposing morality". :D Too funny.
Well then the legislative branch would be imposing there morality.
I am not imposing anything on anyone, I am just saying I dont have a problem with them having marriage because I think everyone should have the same rights like it says in the constitution I think.
Or is the constitution just a piece of paper without value?
Again I dont have a problem with is opinion.
I never said I did either.
I have a problem if they impose a law based on their morality.
Their morality isnt any more right than anyone else so why should they decide.
I think people should have the choice.
If a church does not recognize gay marriage then thats fine by me.
They have the right to decide for themselves.
If another church wants to do it then by all means they should be allowed.
This does not limit anyone.
Sabre
I agree with Thrawn
People use to burn witches after torturing them.
Are you telling me that was right?
A gallant effort, Capt Apathy, but it would seem they're simply caught in their circular logic to understand.
Caught in circular logic?
I am not caught in anything.
I am not here to force my beliefs on anyone.
All I have said is that I believe people should be given choice.
I fail to see how that is limiting you from thinking it immoral.
If it does not limit you then I fail to say how it is bad for you.
If offering people the choice to decide is forcing my opinion on someone then I plead guilty on all charges. :D
As for the Captain
I answered your questions, now why dont you answer mine. ;)
-
some of the polygamist groups n Utah have been trying to get their marriages recognised for a hundred years or so. if we refuse to expand our view on marriage to take in what these people want it to mean, then why should the gays get special treatment? - Capt. Apathy
I don't believe that gays should get special treatment in any area, including the marriage issue.
But laws are subject to change. If Utah ever gets a majority of people who want polygamist marriages allowed, Utah could enact laws that allow it.
In the gay marriage issue, individual states can apparently do the same thing. However, it looks like the gays are making this a national issue, which would lead one to believe that they base thier arguments on constitutional rights.
Your argument about precedents is not applicable here. In law, "precedent" has a special meaning that refers to legal decisions made by the courts. Enacting a law defining marriage does not create a "legal precedent." Laws can and do change.
My argument is that just based on logic, I think lawyers can argue that gays are entitled to the institution of marriage by virtue of being a human being and an American.
It is a scary thought for people, ... it sounds like gays are taking over. If you are against gays being allowed to marry, the best thing you can do is support attorneys and lawmakers who will argue against it.
But I still haven't seen a logical legal argument here against gay marriage that might stand up in a legal argument. Remember, lawyers tend to leave religion and God out of the equation.
These are some wild times to live... might be a good idea to buckle in :eek:
*BTW ... I'd hate to work that detail for a living too! That was only an assignment... thank goodness.
-
I think lesbians should be allowed to get married if they are attractive.
Fatty!! :confused:
Im sure you meant the other way around, ugly lesbians should be allowed to get married and not attractive ones right?
-
Gays are mentally ill and should be treated as such.
Tolerated maybe, Pitied absolutley but never excepted as normal.
They should never hold political office nor have ANY position that allows them to interact with children.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Well then the legislative branch would be imposing there morality.
Really? I thought they were fulfilling their duties to their constituents in a republican form of government when they pass a law.
However, again let me point out that the Legislative branch has taken no action on this. So, you're in high dudgeon over nothing at this point.
Originally posted by AVRO1
I am not imposing anything on anyone,
And neither is Bush. You finally see that, do you?
Originally posted by AVRO1 marriage because I think everyone should have the same rights like it says in the constitution
I'm not sure marriage is even mentioned in the US Constitution.
Originally posted by AVRO1 I have a problem if they impose a law based on their morality.
Well, you probably have LOTS of problems. Legislative bodies across the globe enact and impose laws based on "their"morality and the "morality" of their constituents.
Just a quick example; there's some places in Canada you can't hunt on Sundays. And that's about the most minor one I can imagine.
Then there's the aforementioned incest example in this thread. There's laws against incest in many if not most nations/states/provinces around the world.
A lot of laws are based on the perceived or expressed "morality" of the voter base. So, you've gots lots and lots of problems around the globe.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Gays are mentally ill and should be treated as such.
Tolerated maybe, Pitied absolutley but never excepted as normal.
They should never hold political office nor have ANY position that allows them to interact with children.
Mentally ill?
So, my friend shouldn't be in any position that allows him to interact with children?
You had better call the state medical board and inform them that the head of pediatrics in their very prestigios hospital is gay and that they should grab their pitchforks and drum him out of there. [[notice I didn't name the place in case one of you try to do so] Oh yea, and burn all his books on the subject of child abuse, which he has worked his entire life to combat.
What about friends of gays? Where should I turn myself in?
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
You have the right to believe what you want.
But you dont have the right to tell others that something is wrong because your religion says it is.
If Bush passes is law then you are in effect telling other religions who dont have a problem with gay unions that they are wrong.
Freedom of religion is in your constitution.
What gives POTUS the right to decide for others what is right and what is wrong according to is beliefs?
Can he prove is beliefs are more right then someone else?
No he cant, so he as no morale authority just like every single person on this planet.
So why should he decide what is right and what is wrong?
Just something for you to think about.
Well....the politics of all of this is not what I was speaking of....what I shared is only Rude's belief.
I suppose the world you speak of would have no judgements made by anyone....who among us would have the authority to deem rules or laws fair and just.
Let's live in a world of anything goes....that would work I'm sure.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Gays are mentally ill and should be treated as such.
Tolerated maybe, Pitied absolutley but never excepted as normal.
They should never hold political office nor have ANY position that allows them to interact with children.
...and intollerant bigots should be....should be....hmm, can't think of any punishment fitting.
How 'bout, forced to watch Streisand and Bette Midler flicks 24/7 while being forceed to drink various fruity wine coolers in glasses with umbrellas.....and a daily enema of baking soda and vinegar.
There!
-
Originally posted by Curval
Rude,
By your definition God will judge all of us and in that judgement we will either go to heaven or hell.
So, lets take a murderer who has raped and mutilated a number of his victims. He gets caught and goes to jail. In jail he finds Christ.
Judgement day comes.
My friend, who has devoted his life to helping people and who has saved thousands of children from abusive parents goes to hell because during his life he committed acts of sexual pleasure with another man.
But, the murderer who found Christ at the last second goes to heaven.
If THAT is what your version of God is like I will not buy into it.
Apathy...Sabre tried that silliness with pedophilia etc. already. He has been responded to adequately already, there is nothing more I can add to the points already made.
Curv....
Salvation has nothing to do with what sin is committed, but rather the recognition of that sin, the confession of it and the belief in your heart that God loved us enough to give his Son as the propitiation for ALL sin.
So in other words, your friends sin is no worse than that of mine....the difference is that I recognize mine and confess it unto forgiveness.
This is not my religion...it was not born and written by Rude. It is simply Gods written word as delivered through the Bible. Take a moment if you care and read Romans in the new testament...then post back your thoughts....I would be interested as to your take on what you've read.:)
As to homosexuality, I just believe it's a sin and is wrong....no one here has to agree with me, it's simply my personal belief.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
...and intollerant bigots should be....should be....hmm, can't think of any punishment fitting.
How 'bout, forced to watch Streisand and Bette Midler flicks 24/7 while being forceed to drink various fruity wine coolers in glasses with umbrellas.....and a daily enema of baking soda and vinegar.
There!
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I dont mean to make an example, but I cant help to notice that the 'Cavemen Conservatives' are making constructive arguments explaining their viewpoint and the 'Enlightened Liberals' are basically retorting with variations of "Youre dumb!"
:rolleyes:
-
Rude, I'll take a look at Romans and let you know. Problem is I don't read Arameic, which I believe was the ancient language which the original was written. So, I'll have to settle for The King James version of the bible.
I really don't like taking a book that has been translated thousands of times and trying to discern what the author was trying to say. It is kind of like that game where kids sit around a table and one kid tells the kid next to them a quick one line story. That child then tells the person next to them, and so on. By the time the story reaches the last kid, who reveals what they have heard, the story is unrecognisable from the original.
I would also have a hard time basing my entire life upon such a book. Not because I don't like the bible or religion, but because it was written (and translated) by the most prone things to error...humans.
-
Gays are mentally ill and should be treated as such.
Tolerated maybe, Pitied absolutley but never excepted as normal.
They should never hold political office nor have ANY position that allows them to interact with children.
mentally ill, you might be onto something there. interesting way to look at it. if they truly expect us to believe thhat this is an abnormal behavior that they are born with and not a lifestyle choice, then I guess you could call it a mental defect.
but on the issue of 'no political office or any contact with children'. my God man, don't you think thats a bit over the top. it's just one issue in their lives, and our courts have a long enough list of 'straight' people we need to keep away from kids, with out worrying about this. please tell me the last bit was a troll.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Rude, I'll take a look at Romans and let you know. Problem is I don't read Arameic, which I believe was the ancient language which the original was written. So, I'll have to settle for The King James version of the bible.
I really don't like taking a book that has been translated thousands of times and trying to discern what the author was trying to say. It is kind of like that game where kids sit around a table and one kid tells the kid next to them a quick one line story. That child then tells the person next to them, and so on. By the time the story reaches the last kid, who reveals what they have heard, the story is unrecognisable from the original.
I would also have a hard time basing my entire life upon such a book. Not because I don't like the bible or religion, but because it was written (and translated) by the most prone things to error...humans.
Well...it wasn't written by Dr. Suess...this is God we're talkin about here:)
"In the biginning was the Word, and the Word was God" I just don't believe that the confusion you speak of applies to God's word. Still, I understand your concern.
Try this as you begin to read....disconnect your intellect and bias....wait for a witness deep inside of you as to what is really the truth...be honest with yourself:) It's hard to see when your eyes are closed by pre-concieved notions.
Lookin forward to your take!
-
disconnect your intellect
This is precisely what faith-based thinking requires, and is something which I patently refuse to do.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Gays are mentally ill and should be treated as such.
Tolerated maybe, Pitied absolutley but never excepted as normal.
They should never hold political office nor have ANY position that allows them to interact with children.
This is why we need laws to protect certain groups.
-
Saur...are you suggesting that what Mighty1 said was a "constructive argument"? Surely you jest? MrLars was obviously being facetious in his response.
-
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I don't want to let this issue get cold ...
Who among you will speak for the cadavers, and their right to give "passive consent" to various sexual acts, and yes, even marriage to the right person?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Saur...are you suggesting that what Mighty1 said was a "constructive argument"? Surely you jest? MrLars was obviously being facetious in his response.
Yeah, thought the baking soda and vinegar enema would have telegraphed my intentions.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I don't want to let this issue get cold ...
Who among you will speak for the cadavers, and their right to give "passive consent" to various sexual acts, and yes, even marriage to the right person?
Well, I'm an organ doner. So, when I die they get first crack at my corpse. After that if the necrophiliacs want what's left, they're welcome to it. Marry it, live in sin with it, whatever...once I'm dead I promise I won't be offended.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Toad
Really? I thought they were fulfilling their duties to their constituents in a republican form of government when they pass a law.
However, again let me point out that the Legislative branch has taken no action on this. So, you're in high dudgeon over nothing at this point.
And neither is Bush. You finally see that, do you?
I'm not sure marriage is even mentioned in the US Constitution.
Well, you probably have LOTS of problems. Legislative bodies across the globe enact and impose laws based on "their"morality and the "morality" of their constituents.
Just a quick example; there's some places in Canada you can't hunt on Sundays. And that's about the most minor one I can imagine.
Then there's the aforementioned incest example in this thread. There's laws against incest in many if not most nations/states/provinces around the world.
A lot of laws are based on the perceived or expressed "morality" of the voter base. So, you've gots lots and lots of problems around the globe.
I did not say that Bush was doing it.
I said that passing such a law would be doing it.
So stop trying to read between the lines.
I am not accusing anyone of anything.
Would is conditionnal as I am sure you are aware.
What I am saying is simple:
If you leave religions the choice then everyone can do what they want.
If you dont like it then dont watch.
Whats so damn hard to understand about that?
You still have the right to call it immoral and gay people can get married.
In my book that makes everone a winner.
Do you understand now?
The bible was not written by god, it was written by humans.
Translations have changed the meaning of it in some places too.
I suppose the world you speak of would have no judgements made by anyone....who among us would have the authority to deem rules or laws fair and just.
No it would not.
The problem I have with it being illegal is that it makes a victimless crime.
Who is the victim in a gay relationship or marriage?
There is none. Therefore it is not a crime.
If its not a crime then I see no reason not to allow it.
banana
This is precisely what faith-based thinking requires, and is something which I patently refuse to do.
I agree.
I believe in things that are proven.
I dont believe in god(s) because there is no concrete evidence that he or they exist.
Jesus could have been nursed back to health before reapearing.
And then he left because he would be killed if caught.
No one can say that is not what happenned and no one can say that it did.
We will never know what really happenned.
-
This thread is gay.
...and chock full of closet homosexuals.
If there was a "god" that gave two ****s who was boffing whom, it wouldn't be worth worshipping anyway.
-
Well, I'm an organ doner. So, when I die they get first crack at my corpse. After that if the necrophiliacs want what's left, they're welcome to it. Marry it, live in sin with it, whatever...once I'm dead I promise I won't be offended.
SOB
What kind of a sick human being would want to make love to a cadaver with no liver, no heart, no kidneys and no eyes? Let alone get married to it! :D
-
If you're going to take the whole "gay s...I mean marriage is immoral/degenerate/deviant/offensive" how different are you from someone who opposes interracial marriage on the same grounds? And you would wonder why people consider you a bigot and/or a homophobe? There are good reasons to oppose pedophilia/beastiality/ect. beyond the emotional response to the act, but I don't see that being the case for homosexual marriage.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Saur...are you suggesting that what Mighty1 said was a "constructive argument"? Surely you jest? MrLars was obviously being facetious in his response.
No I am most definately not - in fact, it wasnt an arguyment at all - but at least it was a personal viewpoint instead of the usual 'defense' that the acceptance types seem to bring to the front.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
I did not say that Bush was doing it.
I said that passing such a law would be doing it.
So stop trying to read between the lines.
I am not accusing anyone of anything.
Oh?
Originally posted by AVRO1 08-01-2003 07:39 PM
I saw on TV Bush saying he wanted to pass a law to make it illegal.
Who is he to decide what is right and what is wrong for everybody else?
What gives him morale authority over others?
He cant prove he worships a more worthy god then anybody else.
So what gives him the right to force his views on anybody else?
Originally posted by AVRO1 08-02-2003 01:13 PM
.
If Bush pushes this law because of his religious beliefs then he is putting religion into the government.
Originally posted by AVRO1 08-03-2003 06:13 AM
If Bush passes is law then you are in effect telling other religions who dont have a problem with gay unions that they are wrong.
Originally posted by AVRO1 08-03-2003 01:51 PM
The problem is that Bush is trying to push this law because of is personnal beliefs.
Originally posted by AVRO1 08-03-2003 04:30 PM
I know about special interest groups you know. :rolleyes:
What I saw on TV was Bush who seemed to be saying he would make a law that marriage as to be the way he sees it.
So you didn't say all this? You didn't say Bush was doing it?
Originally posted by AVRO1
I am not imposing anything on anyone, I am just saying I dont have a problem with them having marriage
Bush isn't imposing anything on anyone, he is just saying he does have a problem with them having marriage.
So, he's just doing exactly what you are doing here. But it's OK for you to do it but not for him to do it because the Constitution says that everyone gets the right of free speech except for the folks that don't agree with you, correct? :D
Again, remember US Presidents DON'T make laws. The Congress does. All you need do is review how many things Presidents have proposed that the Congress either totally ignores or simply disapproves.
-
How can you NOT look at Gays as being Mentally Ill?
They are no different than Alchoholics or people with Eating disorders etc..
How could you possibly want someone who is mentally challenged making decisions for you OR being around your kids?
And how about this?
Gay Bishop (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/04/gay.bishop/index.html)
It's now OK for a Preacher to be Gay?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
How can you NOT look at Gays as being Mentally Ill?
They are no different than Alchoholics or people with Eating disorders etc..
How could you possibly want someone who is mentally challenged making decisions for you OR being around your kids?
And how about this?
Gay Bishop (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/04/gay.bishop/index.html)
It's now OK for a Preacher to be Gay?
How could you NOT read this....
or
This....
Originally posted by Mighty1
Gays are mentally ill and should be treated as such.
Tolerated maybe, Pitied absolutley but never excepted as normal.
They should never hold political office nor have ANY position that allows them to interact with children.
Without the word Bigot coming to mind.
-
MT, if you go by the definition of "bigot" in this thread, it seems to show those critters on both sides of the fence.
Webster
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
Like I said, plenty of intolerance being shown in this thread on both sides of the discussion.
;)
-
Gay's should be treated no differently than any other minority. They HAVE NO CHOICE in their sexual preference. So intolerence of Gay's is no different than intolerence of Blacks or Hispanics or Eskimos or any other group of people you would like to lump together.
You can limit your argument to a strict definition by Webster if you like Toad, but you are mistaken when you compare the bigots who are obstinant about the need to INCLUDE with those who feel the need to EXCLUDE by calling them both "Intolerant".
Yes I am bigoted FOR Inclusion and Tolerance and Equal Treatment under the law. I Have never seen a decent argument that would make that bigotry go away.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Does that mean that when you get upset by strange ppl that insist on parking airliners in your skyscrapers, that you're being bigoted against their views?
Are we being bigoted against tyrants like Saddam?
Are you saying terrorists are gay?
Or just throwing out a gay red-herring? :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Gay's should be treated no differently than any other minority.
And no group should get preferential treatment either.
So maybe amend that to say gay's should not be treated any differently than anyone else. Which is equality under the law.
I don't understand the gay-thing, unless it's hot lesbians, then I'm into that.
As far as marriage, who cares! I think my wife might be against me being allowed to marry, but that's a different story.
And SOB is definately gay!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Gay's should be treated no differently than any other minority. They HAVE NO CHOICE in their sexual preference. So intolerence of Gay's is no different than intolerence of Blacks or Hispanics or Eskimos or any other group of people you would like to lump together.
You can limit your argument to a strict definition by Webster if you like Toad, but you are mistaken when you compare the bigots who are obstinant about the need to INCLUDE with those who feel the need to EXCLUDE by calling them both "Intolerant".
Yes I am bigoted FOR Inclusion and Tolerance and Equal Treatment under the law. I Have never seen a decent argument that would make that bigotry go away.
MT, I 've seen you use "they have no chioce" several times. What do you base that statement on?
-
Why do gays have a "right" to legal marriage? More fundimentally, what is the purpose of a legally binding marriage? Why was the institution created (from a civil, rather than religous POV)? What positive influences or advantages to society was/is it meant to promote? What benefits to society would gay marriage promote to offset the cost of giving them the tax advantages and spousal employee benefits (which is what it primarily comes down to) heterosexual couples receive?
Some other questions that come from a somewhat parallel issue: Should obesity be considered a handicap on par with a parapaligic, a deaf person, or a blind person? There is some research that supports the theory that some very obese people are genetically prone to it. Yet it is inarguably their behaviour that make them obese. Should they be legally entitled to disability, or handicap parking, or government healthcare and entitlements? I'm genetically prone to laziness (or so my dear mother stated more than once while I was growing up:)). Shouldn't I get all the benifits provided by the state (tax breaks, subsidies, healthcare, wireless phone service) of my medically handicapped fellows? After all, I'm not happy if I have to work for a living, so why would you be so cruel and heartless to force me to live a life not "natural" to me? We must have equal rights for lazy people! There are a lot of us, honest...they're just to lazy to stand up and be counted.
-
Sabre,
If you've got the money and the lobbyist, I say go for the Lazy handicap thing!
That's all it takes sometimes :)
-
Originally posted by Apache
MT, I 've seen you use "they have no chioce" several times. What do you base that statement on?
I'm glad you asked....
Scientific studies: Detection of homosexual propensity in children: Richard Green, a psychiatrist from UCLA has compared effeminate with "masculine" boys.2 Children who grow up to become homosexuals often engage in "gender inappropriate play" in early childhood. 1, Page 116-7 "'Feminine' boys played about four times as much with the doll...a third as much with the truck." By interviewing their child subjects later in life when they were in their teens and early twenties, the researchers found that 75% of the effeminate boys had become gay adult males. It is obvious that these boys were not taught this behavior. They did not copy their behavior from other children in the family; they were often under harsh and severe pressure from their parents to change. One reasonable conclusion is that that they are driven to this type of behavior by an innate trait which is outside of their control and consciousness.
Cross-cultural study: Whitham and Mathy studied 375 homosexual men in Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and the United States. 3 They consistently found that 25% of homosexual men display highly gender atypical behavior, while 50% showed marked gender atypical behavior as young children. They played with what are normally considered girls' toys and were regarded as sissies. These studies also find the same effect among adult lesbians; however, the percentages are much lower.
and
A number of techniques have been used to try to suppress homosexual feelings and/or create heterosexual feelings in gays and lesbians: 1
lesbians had their breasts amputated
lesbians had their perfectly healthy uteri removed
gays were given aversion therapy; e.g. clients were shown pictures of naked men and simultaneously shocked with electricity
brain surgery in the form of frontal lobotomies
castration
counseling and psychotherapy
drug therapy: e.g. animal-organ extracts, cocaine, estrogen, testosterone
positive therapy: e.g. men were asked to masturbate and then were shown pictures of women just before orgasm
prayer and spiritual counseling
therapy by tedium: men were shown homoerotic pictures until they became totally bored
During the Nazi regime in Germany, Himmler attempted to "cure" gays by requiring them to visit the camp brothel at Flossenburg. "Ten Ravensbruck women provided the services with little success. The women [were later]...shipped to Auschwitz" for execution.
During the recent apartheid regime in South Africa, gays and lesbians were considered deviants. They were sent to a special ward of a military hospital and "rehabilitated." This involved electric shock treatments and chemical castration. Those who could not be "cured" were given sex-change operations. A number of "patients" died.
The success rate of these therapies has been between 0% and something less than 0.1%. Some of these "therapies" can persuade homosexuals to be celibate, either through terror or guilt. They can persuade bisexuals to confine their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex. They may even be able to train gays to successfully have sex with a woman, while fantasize about making love to another man. But they do not seem to be capable of changing one's feelings (one's sexual orientation). 20
and
Homosexual behavior is natural in the sense that it is extensively found in nature. It has been observed in: antelopes, boars, bulls, chimpanzees, cows, ducks, cats, dogs, fruit flies, geese, gorillas, gulls, horses, humans, langurs, rams, sheep, macaques, monkeys, turkeys and vervets.
Bruce Bagemihl, a biologist from Seattle, WA, found that in zoos, at least 5% of Humboldt penguin pairs are gay. He has prepared an encyclopedic survey of homosexual or transgender behavior among more than 190 species, including butterflies and other insects. An Amazon.com reviewer commented: "Throw this book into the middle of a crowd of wildlife biologists and watch them scatter. But Bagemihl doesn't let the scientific community's discomfort deny him the opportunity to show 'the love that dare not bark its name' in all its feathery, furry, toothy diversity." 7 The reviews of this book are well worth reading for their own value.
Whiptail lizards, (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) found in the American southwest, are all females. They reproduce by parthenogenesis. Unfertilized eggs develop, producing an exact clone of its mother. Even though no males exist, the females still exhibit sexual mating behavior. Those that attract a partner have been found to produce more and healthier eggs. 8,9
Another source states that "Homosexuality exists in proven ratios in all mammal species....It is as natural as blue eyes, left-handedness, or the genetic predisposition to walk on two legs." 8
source - http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#norm
-
MT, I 've seen you use "they have no chioce" several times. What do you base that statement on?
Not to speak for MT, but I do have a lesbian sister-n-law who has stated to me that about the time most girls were developing an interest in boys, she felt no interest and instead began feeling an attraction to other females. Personally, it has never been a choice for me so I find it hard to understand those who think it is... unless their heterosexuality happens actually to be more of a conscious choice for them :) If it is, please share. It must be a daily struggle and it might help to let it out.
When I was about six or seven I came across a playboy and had a "funny" reaction down below. I had absolutely no concept of sexuality at the time and was so innocent I actually went and asked my mother what was happening:) I have never had that reaction looking at a male or any pictures of males. That tells me that sexual orientation, gay straight or open to both, is something you have an instinctive predisposition to. I could not change that instinct if I wanted to.
As for my sister-in-law, her difference became so uncomfortable in high school, undoubtedly helped by the growing realization among her peers that she was different (she’s not exactly a girly girl), that she tried to kill herself. I doubt she would have consciously chosen a path that would lead to that much confusion and misery. Her girlfriend has lost all contact with her family because of her "choice." There is a part of me that feels uncomfortable seeing them hold hands or otherwise have normal, casual shows of affection -- but that's my problem. If I were hateful and vindictive, I suppose I would want them to avoid having a personal sex life and loving affection if they couldn't control their "urges." But what a horrible thing to deny two consenting adults whose abnormal behavior is not abnormal to them, and that happens behind closed doors.
BTW, how many of you Christian moralists eat ham or bacon? Since you're so Old Testament vs New Testament, I assume you all keep Kosher? Or do you just pick and choose the parts of the Bible that support your prejudices like the Southern Baptists with their past support for slavery and the European Catholics with their past centuries of Jewish pogroms?
Charon
-
300!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh?
So you didn't say all this? You didn't say Bush was doing it?
Bush isn't imposing anything on anyone, he is just saying he does have a problem with them having marriage.
So, he's just doing exactly what you are doing here. But it's OK for you to do it but not for him to do it because the Constitution says that everyone gets the right of free speech except for the folks that don't agree with you, correct? :D
Again, remember US Presidents DON'T make laws. The Congress does. All you need do is review how many things Presidents have proposed that the Congress either totally ignores or simply disapproves.
I said if which means in the event of.
So stop trying to twist my words or read it a few times before commenting.
If your not sure then you can ask what I meant instead of twisting everything.
Once again I am not trying to force you to do anything.
If religions have the right to do it or not then they are not forced.
Which means you can still call it immoral if you want.
How is that limiting your choice?
Being forced means you have no choice, in this case you do.
Get that?
Not everyone on these boards uses english everyday as I am sure you are aware. :rolleyes:
One other stupid word twisting post from you and I will put you on my ignore list.
AVRO out.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Sabre,
If you've got the money and the lobbyist, I say go for the Lazy handicap thing!
That's all it takes sometimes :)
I would, Stringer, but I keep putting it off...too much work:D.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
So stop trying to twist my words or read it a few times before commenting.
[/b]
Those are direct quotes and they aren't taken out of context.
Pretty hard to twist a direct quote.
If that's not what you meant to say, then just admit you phrased it extremely poorly and be done with it.
Originally posted by AVRO1
Once again I am not trying to force you to do anything.
[/b]
I know. And Bush is doing exactly the same thing you are, except you seem to be unable to see that. Or, if you DO see that, you don't think he has the same "rights" to speak that you have.
Get THAT yet?
Originally posted by AVRO1
One other stupid word twisting post from you and I will put you on my ignore list..
[/b]
Like if I quote you directly again? :D
-
MT...
lemme get this straight...
"Bigotry used in the war against bigotry is no vice, it's a virtue!"
Is that what you're driving at?
:D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Gay's should be treated no differently than any other minority. They HAVE NO CHOICE in their sexual preference. So intolerence of Gay's is no different than intolerence of Blacks or Hispanics or Eskimos or any other group of people you would like to lump together.
I think the key is to not confuse the behavior with the predisposition. Some people do indeed engage in homosexual behavior and they aren't gay. Still... I'm inclined to believe that many if not most truly don't have a choice.
-
Originally posted by Toad
MT...
lemme get this straight...
"Bigotry used in the war against bigotry is no vice, it's a virtue!"
Is that what you're driving at?
:D
Almost got it right Toad... and on the 1st try too!
"Bigotry (by the definition you provided) used in the war against intolerance is no vice, it's a virtue!"
-
I blame the Palestinians!!
-
I dont use english everyday ok so stop telling me what I am saying. I know exactly what I am saying and you dont.
This is what I was trying to say:
If you make a law that says something is wrong because of your religious beliefs then others that believe otherwise are limited by your beliefs.
Which I believe to be against freedom of religion.
I never said I had a problem with Bush's opinion.
He as the right to hate gays if he wants to.
So what is wrong with letting religions decide?
If they are against gay marriage then they dont have to do it.
If they are for it then they can do it.
I fail to see how that limits anyone.
Maybe you can enlighten me since you seem to know all. :rolleyes:
Im out of here. This thread is pointless.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"Bigotry (by the definition you provided) used in the war against intolerance is no vice, it's a virtue!"
Bigotry IS intolerance. Intolerance IS bigotry, MT.
Ouroboros.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
I know exactly what I am saying and you dont.
Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you. And I suspect I'm not the only one. But it's not because I can't read and comprehend the words and syntax you choose to use. :)
-
if this thread gets to 500 sob, im gonna find some real good porn for ya.
and btw for that want to be gay guy that bash's gays. Almost all sexual offenders and child molestors are straight men.
and marines. SEMPER FI SEMPER FI!!
(okay not all marines)
-
It's not gonna be gay porn, is it?
SOB
-
gay as in lesbians. then yes its gay porn.
-
Outstanding!
-
No way it makes 500. Skuzzy will lock it before then. All these guys spraying testosterone all over the place... wew... just add 1000 gallons of baby oil and you'd have the makings for one of the best gay porn films ever made.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bigotry IS intolerance. Intolerance IS bigotry, MT.
Ouroboros.
No it isn't. It doesn't matter if you call it intolerance or bigotry.
Fine, intolerance of intolerance is intolerance. It's not germaine to the discussion. The thing that matters is what the intolerance is intolerant of.
MT: You shouldn't be intolerant of gays.
T: Are you intolerant of Saddam Hussein?
MT: Yes.
T: Hypocrit! All intolerances are the same thing.
The above argruement is really a strawmen, that bypass are the supporting reasons that MT might have to explain why one should tolerate gays. Then again, maybe Toad is just having fun.
-
184 to go... er... 183
-
Here SOB, I'll help ya out.......
Thrawn, there's guys on both sides of this argument totally intolerant of someone else's right to hold a differing viewpoint.
And there is the basic underlying problem.
-
After review of our dogma, my religion has updated its view on this subject.
Marriage of attractive bisexual women be allowed, and polygamy in these relationships should be encouraged.
Marraige of gay men should be allowed but monogamous, with the death penalty for adultry.
Animal husbandry should be allowed, but only if they tap their hoof twice indicating consent.
The wedding of corpses should be allowed but only with consent in the will of the deceased.
-
Toad...I'm hoping that you aren't referring to me bud.
Hell, I'm even going to read the bible to try and see what drives Rude....I just haven't been able to dig one up yet ;) (actually I haven't looked YET, but I will).
I have no problem with other people's view points, but where I think they are wrong I will use my freedom of speech to say so. I will also use the same right to ignore those who sit back and act like they are arm-chair psychologists asking all kinds of irrelevant questions as if to say "And how does that make you feel?" in an effort to garnish information to be used as ammunition later and who blatantly ignores any counter points made.
I also apprecaite INDIVIDUAL opinions...not parrots who see the world through a narrow "key hole" and who refuse to entertain anything that isn't what they percieve to be normal or moral. Should they choose not to...fine. I will not hold it against them personally.
-
What's wrong with looking thru keyholes? Who are you to judge me?
-
May I please interrupt this pathetic squabbling for a moment?
Fatty>>>
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=93060&referrerid=3203
-
Originally posted by Fatty
What's wrong with looking thru keyholes? Who are you to judge me?
lol...
I have a sneaking suspicion that I would be peering through many of the same keyholes as you Fatty.:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here SOB, I'll help ya out.......
Thrawn, there's guys on both sides of this argument totally intolerant of someone else's right to hold a differing viewpoint.
And there is the basic underlying problem.
Toad, this is just sillyness.
People can FEEL however they want to FEEL about gays and the rights they should have. I am full of tolerance for those people and their poor misguided views.
But when someone advocates that anyone should be TREATED with less respect or have fewer rights, then intolerance is the only response that is appropriate.
on to 500.......
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm glad you asked....
and
and
source - http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#norm
So I gather your opinion is that homosexuality is genetic? Born gay?
-
Bottom line: Children need a mom and a dad. If mom and dad cant be there, they need a father figure and a mother figure. Homosexuals cannot give this to a child. Therefore they should not be allowed to adopt.
Now some might argue that there are some children that normal foster parents dont want to adopt, and it would be better for those children to live with a loving gay couple rather than grow up in an institution. Maybe... BUT, you cant devise a law that says gays are allowed to adopt children who no other foster parents wants. That part of the law would be discriminatory, and therefore that part would get tossed out the window by the supreme court as soon as a case got there.
So, sorry. We need to focus on the kids. They should be our priority here. And having children is not a human right, and if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, then it pretty much comes with the territory that you wont have kids. Im sorry but they just have to live with it.
-
Originally posted by Apache
So I gather your opinion is that homosexuality is genetic? Born gay?
Not just my opinion, a belief based on study and evidence. Whether it is genetic or people are born gay, I'm sure it is something that people have no choice in deciding.
-
Homosexuality very well could be genetic or a mutation in the DNA, unless of course you can prove that other deviations from the norm in the way people turn out aren't genetic/mutation in DNA... such as a 5th finger (thumbs not a finger), or an extra toe. A little deviation in someone's DNA can change something big or little.
Ever heard of pheromones? Women put them off just like men, just a little change of the DNA and voila! A man/woman's pheromone receptors prefer the same sex.
Some people may choose to be gay, but when someone says "I've always been that way"... why can't you take that at face value? Is that so impossible? I mean, afterall, so many people in here keep reciting religion, that's even more impossible to believe than a deviation in the genetic/DNA make-up of someone that causes them to prefer the same sex.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Bottom line: Children need a mom and a dad. If mom and dad cant be there, they need a father figure and a mother figure. Homosexuals cannot give this to a child. Therefore they should not be allowed to adopt.
That's horsetoejam, I was raised by only my dad with no mother figure.
-SW
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not just my opinion, a belief based on study and evidence. Whether it is genetic or people are born gay, I'm sure it is something that people have no choice in deciding.
What evidence? Could you point me to the scientific analysis? I would like to take a gander at it.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Bottom line: Children need a mom and a dad. If mom and dad cant be there, they need a father figure and a mother figure. Homosexuals cannot give this to a child. Therefore they should not be allowed to adopt.
Now some might argue that there are some children that normal foster parents dont want to adopt, and it would be better for those children to live with a loving gay couple rather than grow up in an institution. Maybe... BUT, you cant devise a law that says gays are allowed to adopt children who no other foster parents wants. That part of the law would be discriminatory, and therefore that part would get tossed out the window by the supreme court as soon as a case got there.
So, sorry. We need to focus on the kids. They should be our priority here. And having children is not a human right, and if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, then it pretty much comes with the territory that you wont have kids. Im sorry but they just have to live with it.
A 2 parent stable family is the ideal. No argument there. It is also the minority of families in the US.
I raised my 2 daughters alone for many years. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce, so most children are with one parent or the other. Your logic would ensure a lot of kids would be without homes Hortlund. Because if "you can't provide a mother figure and a father figure" you shouldn't adopt.
Or are you opposed to straight single parent adoptions as well?
-
Bottom line: Children need a mom and a dad. If mom and dad cant be there, they need a father figure and a mother figure. Homosexuals cannot give this to a child. Therefore they should not be allowed to adopt. - Hortlund
I don't disagree that kids need a mom and dad. But what about a homo male and a lesbian female getting married to have a kid, or adopt a kid? This kind of homosexual marriage would be able to provide a father/mother figure to a child... wouldn't it?
:p
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
That's horsetoejam, I was raised by only my dad with no mother figure.
-SW
Sorry AKS, but it is the truth.
And please dont take it personal or anything directed at you. Heck I was raised by only my mom since dad figured he had better things to do.
Nevertheless, children need both their parents in different stages of their lives. A child goes through different periods during childhood. In these different periods, the child needs its parents differently. For example, during the first 4-6-8 months, the child, regardless of sex, needs his/her mother more than anything else. Keeping a small child away from his/her mother for more than a couple of hours causes the child to become distressed and troubled. At this point the child has not yet realized that someone who leaves the room still exists, at the same time it needs its mother both for comfort and food, and if the mother is away, the child reacts as if it had lost its mother. This is the reason why in custody cases, no matter how bad the mom is, the courts tend to seek to find a way to keep the child with its mother 90% of the time in this period.
Then comes another period for the child, 8-24 months. During this period the child starts to realize that it is a separate entity, that it is a person, separated from mom and dad. During this period it is VERY important that the child has good contact with the parent of the same sex as the child. A boy needs his dad alot during this time, while a girl needs her mom alot. During this time, naturally the other parent is important too, but the same-sex parent takes over the mother role from the first period.
And then comes the period where the child develops its own personality, where it realizes that it has a will of its own and that it actually can do what it wants even if mom or dad says no. Normally this happens when the child is between 2 yrs - 4 yrs old. This is the period where parents spend most of the days in endless power struggles with screaming children. Going to the store is a complete nightmare, especially when you are walking past the ice-cream. At night when the kids finally fall asleep, you as a parent have more often than not reached levels of exhaustion you never thought existed (trust me on this... my oldest son is in this period right now). During this period, the child is developing his own personality, and he needs to see how males and females are/interact/work. Here is where young boys need male role models, or where young girls need female role models.
Bottom line:
The child needs a mom and a dad. Same sex parents cannot give the child this. That is just some political correct BS.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I don't disagree that kids need a mom and dad. But what about a homo male and a lesbian mom getting married to have a kid, or adopt a kid? This kind of homosexual marriage would be able to provide a father/mother figure to a child... wouldn't it?
:p
Yeah, it would. As long as the gay dad and lesbo mom decides to play family while the kid is around.
-
You mean early in his life? I had my mom around till I was about 8.
But child adoption doesn't necessarily imply a young child, some children get adopted as old as 18 I believe.
-SW
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A 2 parent stable family is the ideal. No argument there. It is also the minority of families in the US.
I raised my 2 daughters alone for many years. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce, so most children are with one parent or the other. Your logic would ensure a lot of kids would be without homes Hortlund. Because if "you can't provide a mother figure and a father figure" you shouldn't adopt.
Or are you opposed to straight single parent adoptions as well?
I dunno MT, when I was working in that court, I got to decide on adoptions, and I gotta tell you, *all* the single parent adoptions I handled were cases where the husband or wife wanted to adopt their spouses child from a previous marriage or whatever.
I know that it is leagal in some cases for a person to adopt someone, but the law specifically states that such adoptions should only be granted if there are special circumstances. I worked there for a little over two years, and I never saw any such application, nor had anyone else I worked with ever handled such a case. So I dont know how common those adoptions are.
Having said that, sure it is better for the child to have one foster parent rather than growing up in an institution. But at the same time, it might be better for the child to have a "real" foster home when he/she is 2 yrs old, instead of being adopted by a single parent when he/she is 1...
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You mean early in his life? I had my mom around till I was about 8.
But child adoption doesn't necessarily imply a young child, some children get adopted as old as 18 I believe.
-SW
In Sweden you can adopt somone at any age.
-
Well Hortlund, if not being able to provide a mom and dad environment does intervene with gay couples being able to adopt, than you're also implying that 'regular' couples should be prevented from divorce/separation while raising kids. And not allowing singles to reproduce for that matter...
I sincerely doubt that having two same-sex parents is more damaging to the child than having just one, which is the norm by todays standards.
-
Sorry Hortlund, I just don't get it. You yourself admit to being raised in a single parent home and you seem to have turned out okay. You even made it to be a judge for heavan's sake. But here you are arguing that a person must have a mother and father and use it as justificatiion for denying gays the right to adopt.:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
That is quite possibly the most confusing thing I've ever read on these boards.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Yeah, much of the thread is pretty silly.
There's some that want to actively descriminate against gays.
There's some that want "affirmative action" for gays.
There's some that want the other side to renounce their overt support of gays.
There's some that want the other side to renounce their overt opposition to gays.
And there's intolerance on both sides, particularly in the last two categories.
Remind me again about how wars start?
On to 500 men! We can take this hill!
-
Originally posted by Thud
Well Hortlund, if not being able to provide a mom and dad environment does intervene with gay couples being able to adopt, than you're also implying that 'regular' couples should be prevented from divorce/separation while raising kids. And not allowing singles to reproduce for that matter...
I sincerely doubt that having two same-sex parents is more damaging to the child than having just one, which is the norm by todays standards.
Well, no Im not. While it is best for the kids to have a mom and a dad, it is impossible for the government to legislate against divorces. That is a solution no one wants. Personally I would hope that all the moms and dads would take their responsibility the best they could. Stay married? Great. Divorce? Sure, if you have to you have to, but in the divorce scenario both parents really should strive to ensure that the kids still have two parents.
And we cant accept gay adoptions just because there are divorces. That is like apples and pears.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Sorry Hortlund, I just don't get it. You yourself admit to being raised in a single parent home and you seem to have turned out okay. You even made it to be a judge for heavan's sake. But here you are arguing that a person must have a mother and father and use it as justificatiion for denying gays the right to adopt.:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
That is quite possibly the most confusing thing I've ever read on these boards.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
[very serious]
Curval, how many times do you think I've wished that I had a dad? Especially when I was younger?
Im not saying that not having a mom and dad automatically leads to disaster for the kid. Im saying that the kid needs his mom and dad, and if you remove either one, the kid will be affected somehow.
Now we all have our demons, I know I do, and I'm sure you have yours too. Personally I think mine comes from growing up without a dad.
[/very serious]
-
Not just my opinion, a belief based on study and evidence. Whether it is genetic or people are born gay, I'm sure it is something that people have no choice in deciding.
how exactly does a genetic desire to sleep with members of your own sex, and not have sex with the oposite sex, get passed down from generation to generation? I mean scientificly I understand how a recesive gene can lay dormant for a generation or 2, but the idea of a gene that would generally stop people from further contribution to the gene-pool whenever the gene combination surfaced as dominant in a person, makes the likelyhood of this genetic defect surviving in our species for so many thousands of years unlikely.
it's like the blue-eyes / brown-eyes thing where 2 brown eyed people can have a child who has blue-eyes if they both have recesive blue-eye genes. however if you took a group of people and evey time a blue-eyed person was born, you took that person out of the pool of breeders then eventually the likelyhood of a blue eyed person would become less and less. blue eyes would become rarer and rarer until you eventually would have no blue eyed people born.
since homosexuals would be less likely to breed and have children (at least until science figures out a way for one man to get another pregnant. I'm sure once the marriages become more excepted some scientist will find a way to 'help' with that), you would think they would become fewer and fewer with each generation.
on the other hand if it where a learned or chosen behavior, then as the behavior becomes more and more excepted, more will feel free to experiment with this behavior or choose it exclusively, making the numbers who choose this behavior become more common year after year.
so which seems the more likely answer with the numbers of gays we see? I know the 'it's how I was born' is the PC way to look at it. but if you do some thinking you see it just doesn't hold up.
-
but the idea of a gene that would generally stop people from further contribution to the gene-pool whenever the gene combination surfaced as dominant in a person, makes the likelyhood of this genetic defect surviving in our species for so many thousands of years unlikely
Perhaps if you allowed them same sex marraige, then they wouldn't reproduce.
-
I doubt it would have any effect as I believe it is a learned behavior.
-
Does your fanciful theory provide an explaination for its origin then, since it is learned behavior?
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Does your fanciful theory provide an explaination for its origin then, since it is learned behavior?
Check Christopher Lowels family tree.:rolleyes:
-
Alfred Kroeber and his wife Theodora Kracaw Kroeber were pioneering anthropologists largely responsible for the establishment and growth of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California. In 1939 Alfred Kroeber published a landmark essay in which he called his fellow anthropologists to task for their reluctance to study the American Indian berdache tradition because of its close link to homosexuality.
Alfred Kroeber (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/gaybears/kroeber/)
There are sources available that shed a bit of interesting light on this subject that deal with it BEFORE or WITHOUT more modern (and some truly old, I guess) slants cast by religion and politics.
Just for those really interested........
-
Well, far be it from me to shun my responsibilities to help this post reach 500 replies:D. I asked several questions in an earlier post that remain unaddressed. Specifically, what social benefits was society attempting to gain by instituting civil marriage? Forget the religious issue, since the idea of marriage as a legally binding contract predates most organized religions. It was created for objective reasons, not subjective ones. The reasons lie outside emotion, since love was and is not a prerequisite for entering into marriage…it merely adds incentive. So claiming that gays have a right to marry same-sex partners based simply on the fact that they love each other is insufficient to justify civil recognition of such unions. The argument goes, “Gays that love each other have a right to the same entitlements/benefits as same-sex couples.” Or,…
“Why should same-sex couples be allowed civil marriage?”
“So they can get the same entitlements/benefits as same-sex married couples.”
“But why do same-sex couples get those benefits?”
“Because they’re married.”
Circular reasoning. The problem is, most folks in this debate ignore the more fundamental question of why those entitlements/benefits have been extended by civil governments to married couples in the first place. So, what are the fundamental reasons for civil recognition of marriage? There’s really only one: Children. Or rather, children, and the stable environment to raise them in.
Society recognizes that most married same-sex couples have – or can have – children. This is a positive thing for society (in general), as it insures a stable and self-perpetuating society. Because children cost money to bring into the world and rear, certain benefits are extended to the couple from government (tax advantages, property rights, etc.), and from business (more of an incentive to attract and keep stable workers) to defray the costs. These benefits are in recognition of the parents’ decision not to simply abandon the children. It was also very common (and still is, though not as much as in the past) for one parent to work and the other to care for the children. These benefits encourage parents to commit more fully to the care of the children they bring into the world. Only two people of the same sex can produce children by non-artificial means. Two people of the same sex cannot have children with each other. Society also recognizes that having a both a mother and a father is the ideal environment to raise children. Hence, civil marriage is and should remain a union between a woman and a man.
The perception is that homosexual relationships are not as stable as heterosexual ones, in general. I am curious. What percentage of homosexual partnerings last till the death of one of the two, versus heterosexual couples? What is the average length of each type of relationships categorized as permanent, or at least long-term (i.e. lasting long enough to raise children to their majority)? Was not the much more rapid spread of AIDS in the homosexual community, versus the heterosexual community, due in some part to the unstable nature of most homosexual relationships? If this is so, than it further reinforces the notion that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, as a stable family unit is widely acknowledged as the key to a stable society.
This is not to say there are not examples of long-term same-sex couples. But what does it buy society to extend marriage entitlements and benefits to same-sex couples? It’s not a question of “fairness,” but rather of cost-vs.-benefit to society. And make no mistake, extending civil recognition to same-sex couples will have a huge pricetag.
By the way, Capt Apathy, I never considered that angle on the genetics theory of homosexual tendancy.
-
Check Christopher Lowels family tree. - Curval
I must confess that I watch Christopher Lowell's show whenever I run across it. Its kind of like watching two octopusses mating on the Discovery Channel... you don't want to get personally involved in it, but its so darn entertaining to watch. :D
One time he had his Dad on the show as a guest. His father is a burly Longshoreman dockworker looking kind of guy. A man's man. They were standing there together in front of the camera and Lowell's dad put his arm around his gay son and hugged him with obvious fatherly affection and pride.
You can tell that Lowell was uncondonditionally loved as a kid.
-
For those doubting the 'gay at birth' theory, can they tell me why anyone would choose to be gay?
It certainly can't be for tax reasons.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I doubt it would have any effect as I believe it is a learned behavior.
Apache wrote - What evidence? Could you point me to the scientific analysis? I would like to take a gander at it.
Well
This Page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm#norm) (the same one I posted before) has links within the articles to publications and other studies as a backup to the conclusions reached. Maybe that would be a good start.
Learned behavior? I think the only learned behavior in this thread is the hatred for gays.
Your point regarding the genetic dead end is a good one though and should be addressed.
Here is one possible explaination: Sociobiological accounts go a long way toward making a genetic basis for homosexuality plausible in the sense that the reduced fitness of some individuals does not mean that their genetic endowment must necessarily disappear from the gene pool. Sociobiology proceeds by emphasizing the genetic fitness of kinship groups, small clusters of individuals, rather than individuals.3 On this view, the relevant unit for analysis is the group’s survival rather than individual genetic survival. Any genetic makeup that contributes to the survival of the kinship group is by definition adaptive. It is the hypothesis of sociobiology that homosexuality contributes to the survival of the kinship group by enabling contributions that are not possible otherwise. For example, if men and women who are strictly homosexual have fewer children of their own, they can be available for other tasks important to the survival of the group. They might help in the raising and rearing of children and perform other tasks suitable to the childless. If so, homosexuality would be an integral component in the distribution of labor necessary for survival. The kinship group that has genes for homosexuality distributed across its members would be the group more likely to survive. Thus would the genes be preserved even if individual homosexual men and women did not have children.
This Site (http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/links4a.htm#biology) provides links to a ton of articles mostly scientific on the subject.
Check it out.
-
Sabre,
looks like you use "same" and "opposite" as synonyms :)
good post
-
Homosexuality - a Learned Behavior
This paper was written by a clinical psychologist who has been in practice for several years. He has worked with issues surrounding sexuality for many years, and his opinion on this matter should be taken seriously because of his years of experience and his willingness to have an open mind. This willingness to have a "different" opinion has sometimes been quite controversial for him.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Learning and Unlearning of Homosexual Preference
In October of 1982, the Social Justice Committee of the Minnesota Council of Churches issued a highly controversial "Statement of Ministry To and With Gay and Lesbian Persons." Most of the controversy has centered around the statement's assertions that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable. Quite aside from the morality issue, I found one particular assertion in the statement contrary to scientific evidence. The Text reads: "The matter of one's sexual or affectional orientation is not necessarily a matter of choice. Evidence continues to suggest that there is a giveness about it." That statement is simply not true. There is no demonstrable connection between sex hormone levels and/or chromosome structure and sexual preference. Drs. John P. Brantner, Norman Garmezy, and Erving I. Gottesmen, prominent psychologists at the University of Minnesota, verify this. Their opinion is further corroboration of an earlier research summary made by the University of Minnesota's Dr. Ephriam Rosen, who wrote in 1965: "It can be stated with confidence that no consistent abnormalities of endocrine function have been observed in any group of sexual deviates." Interestingly, the homosexual himself frequently believes in a constitutional explanation, endocrine or otherwise. I was born that way and it's unfair to expect me to behave differently, is his claim. It was the conclusion of these University of Minnesota scholars and researchers that no persuasive evidence exists for a genetic or physiological cause of homosexual preference. It is, of course, possible, that at some time in the future some such evidence might be discovered. But the important point is that, at the present, no such persuasive evidence exists.
On the contrary, the most likely hypothesis in the light of available data is that sexual preference is learned. The basic law of learning, the law of reinforcement, states that organisms develop preferences for those behaviors for which they are strongly, frequently, and immediately reinforced by closely related rewards. Sexual arousal and climax are among the most powerful of reinforcers, and are therefore among the most powerful of teachers. Whatever activities an individual engages in frequently, if they are followed by the reinforcing event of orgasm, will become strongly preferred. Even the imaginary rehearsal of behaviors in fantasy thinking, if followed by the reinforcing event of arousal and climax, will become preferred. Thus, masturbation, with its attendant fantasies, has played a critical role in the learning of homosexuality ans well as heterosexuality, depending upon the content of the masturbation fantasies. For example, if a young boy has an early homosexual experience with a seducing adult or older boy, and later reinforces this experience by himself with masturbation and fantasy thoughts, the boy's preference may become homosexual. There are other factors which might predispose an individual to indulge in this self-teaching process. A boy who has considerable anxiety about females or who is preoccupied with winning the love and acceptance of other males, or who identifies with a feminine gender role, might engage in the requisite learning process leading to the development of homosexual preference. This does not mean that the individual sets out at an early life stage deliberately to learn homosexual preference; the entire process of self-teaching may be quite unconscious. Indeed, it may seem to the individual that one day he or she "discovers" a preference for sexual activity with members of hor or her own gender. Learning theory suggests that when such a "discovery" takes place, it is merely the coming to awareness of a self-instruction process that has been underway for a long period of time.
If sexual preference is learned, then it can be unlearned and relearned in an opposite direction. There is a growing body of evidence for such unlearning and relearning. An article appearing in the American Journal of Psychiatry for December, 1980, reports on eleven men whose sexual orientation changed from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality through participation in a pentecostal church fellowship which apparently was a powerfully effective learning environment. Religious doctrine, learned in a close-knit religious fellowship, offered the subjects a "folk therapy" experience which was important in producing their change. On the average, their self-identification as homosexual occurred at age eleven, their change to heterosexual identification occurred at age twenty-three and their period of exclusively heterosexual identification at the time of this study was four years.. The developmental sequences of these men were remarkably similar. All had been actively engaged in homosexual relationships and activities. All except two had "come out" and had been openly active in the gay lifestyle. After their commitment to heterosexuality, their social relationships with women and there attraction to women developed. Six of them married because of sexual attraction and love for a woman. Five were unmarried. None of the unmarried men engaged in heterosexual intercourse because of the religious prohibitions of their church fellowship. However, all of these looked forward to marriage and three were actively dating at the time of the study. The "folk therapy" of religious learning and supportive fellowship was, by itself, effective in their learning heterosexual preference.
There is much additional evidence that homosexuals who wish to change can alter their sexual orientation. It is true that earlier psychotherapeutic strategies, following the general Freudian approach, did not have encouraging success record. But since the late 1960s, the various behavior-oriented therapies based on efficient unlearning and relearning processes, have yielding success rates ranging from 57 percent to 100 percent. The most encouraging behavior-oriented therapies employ a multi-modal approach. They combine breaking the mental association between pleasurable feelings and homosexual fantasies, building as association of relief and anxiety reduction with heterosexual fantasies, and training, where needed, in appropriate courtship skills and assertiveness.
It is important to note that these high success rates are for persons who want to change to a heterosexual preference. We do not insist at IPT that a homosexual attempt to become heterosexual. In fact, we work with homosexuals on many problems without trying to change their sexual orientation. But for persons who do come to us requesting change, we make use of the multi-modal approach with encouraging results.
Institute for Psychological Therapies,
Dr. Ralph Underwager, M. Div,. Ph.D.,
Licensed Consulting Psychologist
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I suspect that I am less forgiving than Dr. Underwager. While I do respect their free agency to choose their own lifestyle, it is my view that, in order to perpetuate the homosexual lifestyle, it is absolutely necessary to recruit in order to continue to exist at all. This means to me that, by necessity, they can be expected to prey on others in hope of recruiting them to accept -or participate- in their choice of lifestyle. I personally have seen this recruitment, and I believe that while they employ what I feel is despicable and underhanded methods of recruitment, they must, by their own inability to otherwise continue their lifestyle continue their inappropriate methods of recruitment.
To often, this means your children -or mine- are being recruited behind our back. This is simply unforgivable, and cannot and should not be tolerated.
I am willing to listen. Anyone that would like to rebut the above discussion is free to do so. I will post here, any honest, dissenting opinion that disagrees with the position statement or suggestions I have made here. My e-mail address is RussS@INet-1.com.
My homepage is at: http://www.inet-1.com/~russs/homepage.htm and there are several articles similiar to this one linked from there. Check it out!
-
For those doubting the 'gay at birth' theory, can they tell me why anyone would choose to be gay?
why would anybody choose any self destructive or deviant behavior?
who chooses to be an adict? what about these kids who cut themselves or otherwise inflict pain on themselves. what about lonely kids who display anti-social behavior? they don't make a conscius choice to be gay but they do make choices. although most people would say that these other behaviors would be the cause of some situation or traumatic incedent in their past. but homosexuality is suposed to be the one (non-physicly caused) mental abnormality that 'just happens', it's a 'special' case. why?
why? do we try to 'cure' suicidal kids? why not just accept that they where 'born that way', and let them get to it? why do we try to treat all these other mental deviations but homosexuality is a hands off issue?
the more socially exceptable it is the easier it will be for kids to make these wrong choices. instead of trying to help them or at least tell them it is not exceptible, why does the PC crowd say we should be cheering them on? if some suicidal kid is out on a ledge and you scream "JUMP! JUMP! JUMP!", then your an a-hole. but that's what the politically corect thing to do is when the mental abnormality is homosexuality.
-
Until someone decides to actually read the evidence I posted I am out of here. Try dealing with solid issues instead of feelings for a minute.
-
read it and was unimpressed.
not surprised to find that this is the opinion put out on a sight called http://www.religioustolerance.org, ran by "Onterio consultants on Religious Tolerance" . would seem to me they have an agenda. not exactly an unbiased clinical report.
-
I think you should let them jump.
-
YIKES..with a capital Y (http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/lit.htm)
Please explain who this character is and exactly what he stands for.
-
scarey stuff. as to who he is, I have no idea. he apears to be another deviants rights advocate, preaching on his version of tolorance.
-
It's ok you can come out, gay is ok today.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
scarey stuff. as to who he is, I have no idea. he apears to be another deviants rights advocate, preaching on his version of tolorance.
Don't you recognise him?
Dr. Ralph Underwager, M. Div,. Ph.D.,
See Rude's post.
-
if he was quoted fairly in the link you posted, he's got some scarey ideas.
of course just because he's a freak doesn't mean he's wrong on all issues.
for example your freind. from your description an outstanding human being, with a huge problem on just one issue.
-
If homosexual behaviour is learned, can someone please explain why it exists in other species? And why it would be caused by genetics in at least on mammalian species, as has been scientifically proven, and not in humans?
"Gay Sheep" Study
Offers Intriguing Prenatal Hormonal Link
By Linda Ames Nicolosi
Nov. 7, 2002 -- A study announced November 4th by a research team at Oregon Health Sciences University has investigated the brain structures of a group of rams that mate only with other rams.
Working at the US Department of Agriculture's Sheep Experiment Station in Idaho, the study's lead researcher, Dr. Charles Roselli, observed that some rams only mount other rams, not ewes. They don't actually pair-bond with these other rams like normal rams do with ewes. However, their sexual attraction is strictly same-sex.
Intrigued by this anomaly, the scientists dissected the "gay" rams' brains and found that their hypothalamus was female-like in size. Roselli believes that abnormal prenatal hormonal exposure of these rams' brains may have caused them to develop in a sex-atypical manner."
http://www.narth.com/docs/sheep.html
-
How does dowding fit into all this? Should he be accepted for what he is? Should he be treated as a pariah? Will he ever get into heaven?
MiniD
-
Hell... let's make him a Bishop...
-
This argument is silly.
Society is changing and you're going to have to accept gay and lesbian rights whether you agree with them or not. I bet in a decade homosexual marriages will be just as common as heterosexual ones, and there's NOTHING you can do about it.
Marriage hasn't really been about religion for years. If you bible thumpers really wanted to get that picky about it, then the right way to go about it would be to say that being 'MARRIED' applies only to good Catholic/Islamic whatever male/female couples. However 'partners' would apply to gays/lesbians.............and the millions upon millions of people who do not practice any religion of any kind. What about those who were never christened at birth? What about all the sinners in the world who have never been to confessional? What about divorce?
Marriage is too broad a term now.
What I find funny is that so many Catholics preach about how wrong being homosexual is, when I'm pretty sure that if there is a God up there he'd rather see us all getting along. Doesn't the Bible preach peace and good will upon man? I'm sure that those who live a life hate towards gays won't exactly get a free pass into heaven when they get to the pearly gates.
Oh, by the way, I am a confirmed Catholic. I'm also very straight - but I'm not narrow minded.
-
I think the catholic church burned some witches in my Hometown last week.
-
Shamelessly stolen from Fatbat on agw, who copied it from elsewhere.
Passing strange that some people only follow the "word of God" when it suits their bigotry.
"Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the
odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around me. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have
to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "
What about another Leviticus.
Leviticus 19:18, "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.".
Or how about.
Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged.".
-
most here agree with that. it's not a judgement on the gay person, but a judgement on the morality acts that is the issue.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if he was quoted fairly in the link you posted, he's got some scarey ideas.
of course just because he's a freak doesn't mean he's wrong on all issues.
for example your freind. from your description an outstanding human being, with a huge problem on just one issue.
Underwager: Take the risk, the consequences of the risk, and make the claim: this is something good. Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God's will for love and unity among human beings. This is the only way...
So you can accept what this guy says about homosexuals (because you happen to agree with him), but that his "other" views are just wrong?
I think that homosexuals (and the issue of gay marriages) are the least of societies problems with this type of person around.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
If homosexual behaviour is learned, can someone please explain why it exists in other species?
[/b]
Are you saying other species cannot learn?
And why it would be caused by genetics in at least on mammalian species, as has been scientifically proven, and not in humans?
[/B]
Is a hormone anomoly during prenatal actually genetic? There are birth defects which cannot be passed to the next generation that are due to pre-natal factors which are not genetic in nature, as they do not affect the gene.
I believe that true genetic differences are actually modifications of the blueprints, not manufacturing anomolies.
-
Foosball is the devil!
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
read it and was unimpressed.
not surprised to find that this is the opinion put out on a sight called http://www.religioustolerance.org, ran by "Onterio consultants on Religious Tolerance" . would seem to me they have an agenda. not exactly an unbiased clinical report.
What was biased? What about the other site?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Until someone decides to actually read the evidence I posted I am out of here. Try dealing with solid issues instead of feelings for a minute.
MT....not unlike this BBS, the internet offers many scientific and sociological studies that counter the links you posted.
More opinions....mankind will never agree on this or many other topics. I personally feel homosexuality is wrong....do I hate them? Absolutely not....God himself loves us all, it's the behavior that he hates.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Don't you recognise him?
Dr. Ralph Underwager, M. Div,. Ph.D.,
See Rude's post.
Curv....stand down my friend....I just grabbed the first article I found supporting the school of gay by choice and not birth.
My point in doing this was simply to show that for every post of one school of thought, the opposing school is represented as well.
It's a crazy world.
-
Originally posted by Rude
MT....not unlike this BBS, the internet offers many scientific and sociological studies that counter the links you posted.
More opinions....mankind will never agree on this or many other topics. I personally feel homosexuality is wrong....do I hate them? Absolutely not....God himself loves us all, it's the behavior that he hates.
This Site (http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/links4a.htm#biology) provides over 200 links to scientific articles and PDF files on the biological aspects of homosexuality. Opinions have nothing to do with scientific analysis.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Shamelessly stolen from Fatbat on agw, who copied it from elsewhere.
Passing strange that some people only follow the "word of God" when it suits their bigotry.
"Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the
odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around me. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have
to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "
What about another Leviticus.
Leviticus 19:18, "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.".
Or how about.
Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged.".
I was gonna stay out of this goofy thread, but the above post, while I'm sure intended as a good old "Gotcha!" wreaks of ignorance of basic bible knowledge. The old testament verses quoted above apply to absolutley NOONE today according to the bible itself.
The Old Testament was law ONLY for Jews BEFORE christs death.
The book of Leviticus is a book of law from the old testament. It was for the jews Before the time of Christ. After Christs death the old testament was fulfilled, "nailed to the cross". Read the book of hebrews. Pay close attention to chapters 7-9. Paul is trying to get the jews to leave the old mosaic law. Paul was a jew himself before being converted to christianity. He worshipped according to the old law (animal sacrifices, etc) early in his life, yet after his conversion to christianity he no longer lived under the mosaic law.
And Matthew 7:1, another scripture that gets plucked out of context, is a warning to people not to harshly judge other people. Which is a basic bible principal. I haven't seen any "judgement" in this thread. Just pointing out that homosexuality is wrong according to the bible? Is that judgement? Paul himself pointed out sin and corrected his brethren in all his writings. Judgement is saying "You're a studmuffin and you're going to hell!" without looking at your own life and correcting your own problems (again read through verse 5 or so)
But anyway, whether you're a christian or not, at least pull things from the rulebook correctly.
Well looks like I'm fair game now. Throw the mud clods. :p
-
hmm, something just hit me. I think dr. Laura is a jew, so that letter would be relevent to her. But it wouldn't be to christians.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Curv....stand down my friend....I just grabbed the first article I found supporting the school of gay by choice and not birth.
My point in doing this was simply to show that for every post of one school of thought, the opposing school is represented as well.
It's a crazy world.
You have no idea how relieved I am to hear THAT. I figured as much, but glad to hear your confirmation.
-
Originally posted by hblair
I was gonna stay out of this goofy thread, but the above post, while I'm sure intended as a good old "Gotcha!" wreaks of ignorance of basic bible knowledge. The old testament verses quoted above apply to absolutley NOONE today according to the bible itself.
The Old Testament was law ONLY for Jews BEFORE christs death.
The book of Leviticus is a book of law from the old testament. It was for the jews Before the time of Christ. After Christs death the old testament was fulfilled, "nailed to the cross". Read the book of hebrews. Pay close attention to chapters 7-9. Paul is trying to get the jews to leave the old mosaic law. Paul was a jew himself before being converted to christianity. He worshipped according to the old law (animal sacrifices, etc) early in his life, yet after his conversion to christianity he no longer lived under the mosaic law.
And Matthew 7:1, another scripture that gets plucked out of context, is a warning to people not to harshly judge other people. Which is a basic bible principal. I haven't seen any "judgement" in this thread. Just pointing out that homosexuality is wrong according to the bible? Is that judgement? Paul himself pointed out sin and corrected his brethren in all his writings. Judgement is saying "You're a studmuffin and you're going to hell!" without looking at your own life and correcting your own problems (again read through verse 5 or so)
But anyway, whether you're a christian or not, at least pull things from the rulebook correctly.
Well looks like I'm fair game now. Throw the mud clods. :p
I don't recall anything in the New Testament regarding homosexual activity...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't recall anything in the New Testament regarding homosexual activity...
Romans chapter 1
-
Originally posted by hblair
Romans chapter 1
Yeah... that was it.
-
Romans Chapter 1 vs 1:
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Rom 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Rom 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
Rom 1:10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
Rom 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
Rom 1:12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Rom 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
Rom 1:14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
Rom 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
According to what I read here homosexuality is on "evil" par with:
Vanity (Rom 1:21)
Saying you are wisw, but being a fool (Rom 1:22)
Producing sculptures of God in the form of animals etc (Rom 1:23)
Masterbation (Rom 1:24)
Serving a "creature" instead of God (?) (Rom 1:25)
Vile affections etc..possibly anal sex with a woman, not sure (Rom 1:26)
Being gay is spelled out in Rom 1:27
Having a reprobate mind, whatever that is (Rom 1:28)
Lots of nastiness in Rom 1:29
Being mean to your parents, and being a backbiter (Rom 1:30)
Convenant breakers (Rom 1:31)
Dunno what Rom 1:32 is trying to say.
So..Romans 1 Chapter 1 has a whole lots of things we shouldn't do in them, not just being a homosexual.
Where does it say that masterbation is LESS of an offense to God than being gay?
I have a feeling ALOT of guys on these boards are going to hell.
-
Where does it say that masterbation is LESS of an offense to God than being gay?
God's word does not say this...rather all sin is sin....God does not judge one sin worse than another like we do, with one exception, the denial of the Holy Spirit...that sin will not be forgiven.
As to many going to hell, it's not just here on this board, but across the globe.
God's plan for us is to have fellowship with us....he has provided his Son as the propitiation of our sins so that we might have life and life abundantly.
Man's own pride will condemn himself.
God loves us all...why I have no idea....I don't feel deserving of that love, but the Word says that it is not by my own works and deeds that I am saved, but rather by God's grace.
Faith is required of us.
For that I'm thankful.
-
"I have a feeling ALOT of guys on these boards are going to hell."
Oh kripes !!!
NwBie
-
Hold on a second there Rude. Justification for preventing (or fixing) homosexuality has been provided in the form of Romans Chapter one...by yourself and others.
Romans chapter 1 does indeed describe homosexuality as being a sin. But it ALSO describes many other things that are sins INCLUDING masterbation.
So, until I hear a call from the religious right demanding that those who masterbate should be "fixed" in the same way that gays should be (no more, no less) I will continue to consider such calls to be hypocritical.
You cannot have your cake...and eat it too.
From what you have just written it seems like the perfect "out" in all of this is to simply admit one's sin and ask for forgiveness.
God gave me the fine specimin that hangs between my legs, he gave me a hand, and he made orgasms extremely pleasant. Why should I ask for forgiveness for doing something HE made feel so damn good?
-
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I believe that this paragraph is refering to those that people that know these activities are sinful, and in spite of that knowledge not only do these things these things, but actually take delight and pride in others that do so. Guess "gay pride" parades would fall into this catagory, eh?
By the way, Mormons do in fact beleive that masterbation is a sin. They believe it to be a misuse of God's gift to create life. Catholics do not, as I recall, and I'm not sure about other religions. I'm assuming you refer to Romans 1:24 and 1:26, though I have to admit they could mean something else than a specific act, such as masterbation.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I believe that this paragraph is refering to those that people that know these activities are sinful, and in spite of that knowledge not only do these things these things, but actually take delight and pride in others that do so. Guess "gay pride" parades would fall into this catagory, eh?
Or shooting a huge load while thinking about two lesbians getting it on. I've done that..you? I'll do it again too...possibly tonight, depends on how tired the wife is.
By the way, Mormons do in fact beleive that masterbation is a sin. They believe it to be a misuse of God's gift to create life. Catholics do not, as I recall, and I'm not sure about other religions. I'm assuming you refer to Romans 1:24 and 1:26, though I have to admit they could mean something else than a specific act, such as masterbation.
I don't care what Mormons do or don't do...same goes for Catholics (except when their priests molest children..then I care)
I specifically stated Rom 1:24 as being the reference to masterbation.
-
they are all sins, all equally sinful. the reason this is a bigger issue at this time, is that nobody is asking society to embrace these other sins as something wonderful and good.
if a group of people in support of any of the other sins where to march in parades, and try to change school curriculum to tell my kids this behavior is not only ok, but something to be proud of, you can bet I'd be squeak'n just as loud.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
they are all sins, all equally sinful. the reason this is a bigger issue at this time, is that nobody is asking society to embrace these other sins as something wonderful and good.
No-one here , that I can see, is saying it is wonderful and good. They (we) are just saying "Who cares, let them do what they want to do." Gays simply want the right to marry. It is your side that is causing the uproar and using ludicrous bible passges to prove your points.
-
So, until I hear a call from the religious right demanding that those who masterbate should be "fixed" in the same way that gays should be (no more, no less) I will continue to consider such calls to be hypocritical.
The call is from God himself and not man.
From what you have just written it seems like the perfect "out" in all of this is to simply admit one's sin and ask for forgiveness.
Repentence is required and is a part of forgiveness....to merely ask for forgiveness but not turn away from that sin in the future is kidding ones self. Repentence is to turn away from sin.
God gave me the fine specimin that hangs between my legs, he gave me a hand, and he made orgasms extremely pleasant. Why should I ask for forgiveness for doing something HE made feel so damn good?
God gave you what you speak of to bring pleasure as part of marriage, between a man and a woman. Many things in life bring physical or mental pleasure, yet are wrong according to God.
Remember, I didn't hand down these rules...God did. I try my best to comply, yet truthfully, am a failure pretty much on a day to day basis. It is my faith in God and his Son to which I hitch my pony....I pray daily and confess my sins...God promises to those who are in Christ, to be faithful and to forgive those sins.
We all will make choices in our lives as to what we believe or don't believe in....I made mine. Some here speak of alternatives as if they themselves are unique in how they live. I have walked many paths in my life...done many things which I am ashamed of to this day...I was a completely different human being until I realized my sins and confessed them, asking God to save me through his only Son. I was born again...a new person.
Now to those who want to speak of this experience, though you have never walked in it yourselves, and condemn it as foolishness, remember...I HAVE walked where you now walk....the difference being that God dealt with me and I responded.
He will deal with all of us, and at that time each and every one of you will make a choice....we all will reap what we sow.
-
Originally posted by Rude
The call is from God himself and not man.
Really? God wrote the bible? You believe this...I say man did, and that its words have been translated and repeated so many times that I am willing to bet it retains NONE (or very little) of its original meaning. But then I suppose you will say that God had a "hand" in this.
Repentence is required and is a part of forgiveness....to merely ask for forgiveness but not turn away from that sin in the future is kidding ones self. Repentence is to turn away from sin.
But when you "fall off" the sin wagon, you can just ask again right? Very convienient.
God gave you what you speak of to bring pleasure as part of marriage, between a man and a woman. Many things in life bring physical or mental pleasure, yet are wrong according to God.
Again, you see God's word in the bible...I see man's interpretation of God's word in the bible.
Remember, I didn't hand down these rules...God did. I try my best to comply, yet truthfully, am a failure pretty much on a day to day basis. It is my faith in God and his Son to which I hitch my pony....I pray daily and confess my sins...God promises to those who are in Christ, to be faithful and to forgive those sins.
See my two comments above.
We all will make choices in our lives as to what we believe or don't believe in....I made mine. Some here speak of alternatives as if they themselves are unique in how they live. I have walked many paths in my life...done many things which I am ashamed of to this day...I was a completely different human being until I realized my sins and confessed them, asking God to save me through his only Son. I was born again...a new person.
Now to those who want to speak of this experience, though you have never walked in it yourselves, and condemn it as foolishness, remember...I HAVE walked where you now walk....the difference being that God dealt with me and I responded.
I have already said that I respect you for your choices.
Why can't you respect a gay's choice and not attempt to limit their actions based upon how YOU interpret the bible?
He will deal with all of us, and at that time each and every one of you will make a choice....we all will reap what we sow.
Fine, let the gays get married and let God sort them out when they die.
[/B]
-
Originally posted by Curval
Romans chapter 1 does indeed describe homosexuality as being a sin. But it ALSO describes many other things that are sins INCLUDING masterbation.
So, until I hear a call from the religious right demanding that those who masterbate should be "fixed" in the same way that gays should be (no more, no less) I will continue to consider such calls to be hypocritical.
You cannot have your cake...and eat it too.
Was merely point out that some on the "religious right" (as defined by liberals, that is) have done just that. No other point intended.
I specifically stated Rom 1:24 as being the reference to masterbation.
Must have missed that.
Regards,
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20030806/ts_washpost/a21844_2003aug5
In a news conference after the vote, Robinson said his opponents were right that the decision was contrary to the church's traditional teaching against homosexuality.
"Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong," he said. "We worship a living God, and that living God leads us into truth."
Gay rights advocates called Robinson's victory a major step toward full acceptance of gays in the Episcopal Church and in American society. Mindful that a national debate is raging over same-sex marriage, they said the church had added its moral voice to those encouraging gays to form life-long, monogamous relationships.
"This is an example to the country, to the culture and to other denominations that diversity is something to be celebrated and that the entire family of God is enriched by individuals who commit themselves to each other," said the Rev. Susan Russell, executive director of Claiming the Blessing, an Episcopal group pushing for an official rite for blessing same-sex unions.
Opponents said the outcome is a step toward moral disintegration in America. They predicted that it would cause thousands of Episcopalians to join more conservative denominations or Episcopal splinter groups.
"The Episcopal Church will emerge from this convention broken, wounded, divided and desperately polarized," Bishop Edward Little of Indiana warned during final debate.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Was merely point out that some on the "religious right" (as defined by liberals, that is) have done just that. No other point intended.
Must have missed that.
Regards,
Sabre,
I was a bit heated in my other response. Apologies.
It is kind of funny though, I have the distinct feeling you have "painted" me with a liberal "brush".
Unfortunately for you though that is not quite as easy as it may seem.
I'm not American and therefore I am not a Republican or a Democrat. If I "had" to be one or the other I would choose to be a republican with respect to economic agendas and "liberalish" with respect to social agendas.
This is why I said what I said in my first post in this thread.
You cannot label me as you can with other Americans.
-
lol...and SOB stirs the pot again. You REALLY want this to be a 500 post thread huh? ;)
I was wondering who would put that in this thread.
Comments Capt, Rude and Sabre?
-
I thought it was relevant in light of the reference in the quote to gay marriages. I think I've made my feelings on the subject abundantly clear, tho, and continuing to contribute anything more than subject matter may lead to me being unkind to the likes of Sabre and Apathy. Best for me just to say nothing further. :)
SOB
-
A good point, Curval, though I honestly didn't intend to call you a liberal. As you say, it is definitely too broad a brush for some. I've re-read Romans 1:24, and have to say, this doesn't look like a reference to masturbation.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves
The words "between themselves" are a clear reference to a cooperative venture, i.e. some sort of interaction between two or more people.
SOB: I respect your intent. I would hope we can conduct discussions -- even on such a potentially emotional topic -- without the need to demean or demonize each other. I always try to re-read my posts several time before hitting "Submit Reply" to insure I'm not unintentionally insulting or putting down the intended (or unintended) reader. If I ever come across otherwise, I would hope people would point it out, so that I might apologize. My "liberal" remark above probably counts as a "sorry, that was not constructive" type remark.
"Just simply to say that it goes against tradition and the teaching of the church and Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong," he said. "We worship a living God, and that living God leads us into truth."
This is the sticking point of the whole debate, from a religious standpoint. It's on a par with those who say the Constitution is a living document, subject to the whims of societal change. What is his (Rev. Robinson's) church based on, if not the Word of God? Is the Bible in fact the Word of God, in his mind? Should God change for us?
These are all theological questions of course. I'm still waiting to hear some ideas on my "Why was civil marriage created?" question. Why should same-sex couples receive the same entitlements as heterosexual couples? What are the benefits to society that outweigh the costs to government and business?
-
400 more posts than the subject needed.
-
Really? God wrote the bible? You believe this...I say man did, and that its words have been translated and repeated so many times that I am willing to bet it retains NONE (or very little) of its original meaning. But then I suppose you will say that God had a "hand" in this.
Those men were inspired by Holy Spirit...what they wrote was directed by God's truth through his spirit.
But when you "fall off" the sin wagon, you can just ask again right? Very convienient.
I don't think you understand....you seem to think that christians are perfect? Does it really anger you that God's plan for salvation is based on our faith in his Son rather than the Law? Like I said before...I didn't write the Bible, I just believe it to hold the truth about our lives.
Why can't you respect a gay's choice and not attempt to limit their actions based upon how YOU interpret the bible?
I cannot respect that behavior, however, I have always tolerated it. I have not now, or at any other time since being saved, stood in judgement over anyone's actions....my judgements are choices for my life only, which I have tried to share here with all of you.
If your friend finds the gay lifestyle suitable, then it will certainly not be Rude who he bows to someday. The Bible gives account of a time when every knee will bow...that includes my own.
Homosexuality is no worse of a sin than adultery in God's eyes...it just happens to be this current threads topic.
I've said all I need to say regarding this matter....my hope is that you will someday realize the Gospel....the Good News of salvation in you and your families lives....your life would never be the same again.:)
-
Originally posted by Sabre
SOB: I respect your intent. I would hope we can conduct discussions -- even on such a potentially emotional topic -- without the need to demean or demonize each other. I always try to re-read my posts several time before hitting "Submit Reply" to insure I'm not unintentionally insulting or putting down the intended (or unintended) reader. If I ever come across otherwise, I would hope people would point it out, so that I might apologize. My "liberal" remark above probably counts as a "sorry, that was not constructive" type remark.
Rgr Sabre, I don't think you've been a jerk (even though you're wrong and I'm right)...if I had, I probably wouldn't be as concerned about being one myself. ;)
SOB
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I don't recall anything in the New Testament regarding homosexual activity...
Surely it can't have escaped your notice that one of the main characters - that Jesus guy - hangs around with twelve men all the time? And he has a snog in the garden with Judas. And as for Mark 14:51 - outrage on the lawn! ;)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Surely it can't have escaped your notice that one of the main characters - that Jesus guy - hangs around with twelve men all the time? And he has a snog in the garden with Judas. And as for Mark 14:51 - outrage on the lawn! ;)
Like pearls to the swine.
-
jesus was a gay hippie. i know its hard for you to accept rude, but your organized religion has lied to you your entire life.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I've re-read Romans 1:24, and have to say, this doesn't look like a reference to masturbation.
The words "between themselves" are a clear reference to a cooperative venture, i.e. some sort of interaction between two or more people.
Well thanks much for proving what I have been saying about the Bible all along. You interpret it one way..I interpret the same verse differently.
Where do you see the reference to homosexuality if not 1:24? Is it even in there?
-
How much study do you have on Romans 1:24 curval? Glancing over it a couple times doesn't make you an expert on it.
How do you get that that verse deals with masturbation? ;)
-
As far as the "you see it your way, I'll see it mine". That goes against basic bible principal. Pauls whole ministry was spent trying to get all christians on the same page. Now why would he do that? So we can have thousands of different denominations, interpretations, and views on the bible?
-
hblair..you are just being argumentative.
I was TOLD by Rude...and YOU...that the reference to homosexuality being immoral and a sin in the New Testament was in Romans Chapter one. I posted the King James Version of Romans chapter one and assumed it was in 1:24 based on a quick read.
I asked Sabre...I'm asking you....WHERE IS IT?
....and if was Paul's intentions to get all Christians on the same page he did a losy job.
...and we HAVE thosands of denominations, interpretations and views on the bible.
I'm trying hard to understand your point...or are you just trying to yank my chain?
As far as masterbation goes...based on experience I am a frigging expert. I make no apologies and I'm not at all embarassed to admit it.
There are two types of men in this world...bananas and liars. Which are you?;)
-
"Just simply to say THAT IT GOES AGAINST tradition and the teaching of the church and SCRIPTURE DOES NOT MAKE IT NECESSARILY WRONG,"
If being gay isn't enough to disqualify him as a minister, then that quote should do it.
If you don't believe the scriptures are undisputable fact you should look for a different line of work. not everyone has to be a believer, but if you're a minister, you'd think it would be a requirement.
-
Wouldn't that make everyone except Catholics godless heathens?
-
how so?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
If being gay isn't enough to disqualify him as a minister, then that quote should do it.
If you don't believe the scriptures are undisputable fact you should look for a different line of work. not everyone has to be a believer, but if you're a minister, you'd think it would be a requirement.
Considering 62 Episcopal Bishops OK'd it, I'd say you're wrong. Unless you think you know their faith better than they do?
SOB
-
62 Bishops and 1 Gay SOB :D
-
Because, Apathy, if the scriptures are indisputable fact then only one of the thousands of denominations could be right.
-
Originally posted by Curval
hblair..you are just being argumentative.
I was TOLD by Rude...and YOU...that the reference to homosexuality being immoral and a sin in the New Testament was in Romans Chapter one. I posted the King James Version of Romans chapter one and assumed it was in 1:24 based on a quick read.
I asked Sabre...I'm asking you....WHERE IS IT?
....and if was Paul's intentions to get all Christians on the same page he did a losy job.
...and we HAVE thosands of denominations, interpretations and views on the bible.
I'm trying hard to understand your point...or are you just trying to yank my chain?
As far as masterbation goes...based on experience I am a frigging expert. I make no apologies and I'm not at all embarassed to admit it.
There are two types of men in this world...bananas and liars. Which are you?;)
Okay, now I'm beginning to suspect you're yanking my chain, Curval. Re-read your last couple of exchanges with me. You seem to have used the term masturbation when you meant homosexual, or vice versa. You said:
I specifically stated Rom 1:24 as being the reference to masterbation.
I said:
I've re-read Romans 1:24, and have to say, this doesn't look like a reference to masturbation.
Yes, Roman's 1 clearly describes homosexual behavrior (clear enough?) as immoral (i.e. a sin in God's eyes). It does not mention masturbation...as I've said. As for interpretation, Roman's 1 seems pretty clear. I simply read it too fast the first time (been a while since I'd looked at it). I must admit, I'm far from a bible scholar.
But again, we digress. Why should same-sex couples get the benefits a man-woman marriage gets? What benefit would it provide to society that outweighs the cost to society?
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Because, Apathy, if the scriptures are indisputable fact then only one of the thousands of denominations could be right.
The only way to really be sure that you're in the right church is to start your own church based on what you know to be the truth because you certainly aren't going to find an exact match in any existing church...
Food for thought.
eskimo
-
It's in cases like this that I look to Jack Chick for guidance.
The Gay Blade (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp)
Of course, being gay to an Protestant evangelical of his tilt is almost as bad as being a Catholic:
Are Roman Catholics Christians? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp)
Last Rites (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp)
Holocaust (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0054/0054_01.asp)
or playing Dungeons and Dragons
Dark Dungeons (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp)
on Halloween :)
The Trick (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0011/0011_01.asp)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Okay, now I'm beginning to suspect you're yanking my chain, Curval. Re-read your last couple of exchanges with me. You seem to have used the term masturbation when you meant homosexual, or vice versa. You said:
I said:
Yes, Roman's 1 clearly describes homosexual behavrior (clear enough?) as immoral (i.e. a sin in God's eyes). It does not mention masturbation...as I've said. As for interpretation, Roman's 1 seems pretty clear. I simply read it too fast the first time (been a while since I'd looked at it). I must admit, I'm far from a bible scholar.
But again, we digress. Why should same-sex couples get the benefits a man-woman marriage gets? What benefit would it provide to society that outweighs the cost to society?
Your right..sorry. lol..I confused myself. Mute point though as you say.
Why? Why not? Interesting you say cost. Please clarify.
As soon as you say "moral cost" we are back to square one in this debate.
I will say "moral" according to YOU.
If, on the other hand you can give me a financial cost analysis we just might have something to talk about that isn't just beating the same dead horse.
-
Why should same-sex couples get the benefits a man-woman marriage gets? What benefit would it provide to society that outweighs the cost to society?
The exact same benefits that a marriage ceramony provides heterosexual couples who never intend to have childern. The right not to be excluded from a dying partner's deathbed by the family, or to have a say in life support decisions for example. Clearer property rights. Clearer custody rights with adopted children (yeah, I know, don't let a gay couple adopt an otherwise unwanted child in the first place). The right to express a personal committment to the other person that goes beyond a few private words.
Nobody's saying your church has to allow gay marriages, but that's not good enough I suppose. Why allow people to marry who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior?
Charon
-
The only way to really be sure that you're in the right church is to start your own church based on what you know to be the truth because you certainly aren't going to find an exact match in any existing church...
Food for thought.
a good point actually. and in most of the churches I've attended there has been at least one or two issues that I don't agree with. usually very trivial IMO (such as the 'official' conservitive baptist idea that dancing is somehow wrong. I don't dance [due not to faith but a lack of coordination] but I've seen nothing in the scriptures that really suports that opinion).
however i try to focus more on the major issues and the things that we agree on when atending a church. it's refreshing, in these times where bashing Christian is the 'in' thing, to spend some time with people who believe.
Considering 62 Episcopal Bishops OK'd it, I'd say you're wrong. Unless you think you know their faith better than they do?
SOB
well I don't supose I'll be attending an Episcopal chaurch any time soon. I don't think it's a minor disagreement when they make a man a bishop who was quoted as saying that 'just because something goes against scripture doesn't make it wrong'
of the 2 issues I would have less trouble with the man being gay than the belief that the scriptures aren't truth.
-
If, on the other hand you can give me a financial cost analysis we just might have something to talk about that isn't just beating the same dead horse.
health insurance costs, the idea of providing health care for the spouse of an employee is to better society by allowing someone to stay home and raise children and still be covered by health insurance.
once you have gay marriages employers will be required to aknowledge these 'marriages' even if they find them moraly wrong. I suspect many will stop providing healthcare for dependants to avoid the issue. or they could just stop providing it at all. even if they don't have a moral problem with it the increased financial cost might just make it to expensive to continue.
also, since it's nobodys bussiness what goes on (or not) in a married couples bed, whats to stop friends or roommates from setting up'marriages' (with a nice pre-nup to assure the other person can't take you financially) to get tax benifits or healthcare for the uninsured person.
if enough people do this they will have to raise everyones taxes to compensate. effectively doing away with the lower rate for maried couples, making it financially harder on children.
historicaly gay relationships have been less stable (there have been exceptions), plus we get the ones that where designed to be temporary (the ones described in the last 2 paragraphs). sorting out these break-ups would further load down our courts.
-
Originally posted by Curval
hblair..you are just being argumentative.
I was TOLD by Rude...and YOU...that the reference to homosexuality being immoral and a sin in the New Testament was in Romans Chapter one. I posted the King James Version of Romans chapter one and assumed it was in 1:24 based on a quick read.
I asked Sabre...I'm asking you....WHERE IS IT?
Verses 26 and 27 are more clear.
Originally posted by Curval
....and if was Paul's intentions to get all Christians on the same page he did a losy job.
Paul died about two thousand years ago. In order for the church today to learn from him, they have to read his epistles in the NT.
Originally posted by Curval
...and we HAVE thosands of denominations, interpretations and views on the bible.
and where did they come from? The more time passes since the time of Jesus, the further out in left field denominations become. Nowadays pretty much whatever floats your boat is ok with most proclaimed christians. but why is that? In the day of the early church it was all so clear. All this is recorded in the bible, no mention of divisions or denominations being ok. Matter of fact paul was big time against any division in the church. My point is this, if you follow the bibles teaching on what the church is supposed to be, then compare it to what you see today for the most part, they are two different animals.
Originally posted by Curval
There are two types of men in this world...bananas and liars. Which are you?;)
I'm sometimes a lying banana :o
-
health insurance costs, the idea of providing health care for the spouse of an employee is to better society by allowing someone to stay home and raise children and still be covered by health insurance.
And what of couples with no children? Should they not recieve spousal health benefits? This was just for the folks who chose to take on the financial responsibility of having a child?
once you have gay marriages employers will be required to aknowledge these 'marriages' even if they find them moraly wrong. I suspect many will stop providing healthcare for dependants to avoid the issue. or they could just stop providing it at all. even if they don't have a moral problem with it the increased financial cost might just make it to expensive to continue.
Yeah, if employers choose to provide health coverage for their employees, they'll have to extend it to anyone lawfully married. I fail to see how or why this is a bad thing. Or don't gays deserve health care either? Hey, maybe we could just allow employers to exclude gays/blacks/asian/whatever from their health plans if they don't like who they are or what they do at home. Surely, this would save employers billions nationwide! Fortunately, not all employers are so bigoted that they would stop providing health care altogether rather than providing it to gays who work for them and their spouses. My employer is one of them...they currently extend health benefits to domestic partners, hetero or homo.
also, since it's nobodys bussiness what goes on (or not) in a married couples bed, whats to stop friends or roommates from setting up'marriages' (with a nice pre-nup to assure the other person can't take you financially) to get tax benifits or healthcare for the uninsured person.
The same thing that's stopping men and women friends from getting married for tax and healthcare benefits. Some might, most won't...why would it be any different?
if enough people do this they will have to raise everyones taxes to compensate. effectively doing away with the lower rate for maried couples, making it financially harder on children.
Last I checked, gay people pay taxes too. They don't deserve the same tax benefits that you do? Frankly, I find it hard to understand why my tax dollars are going to support your kid. It was your choice to have a kid afterall, and I don't remember you asking me if it was OK.
historicaly gay relationships have been less stable (there have been exceptions), plus we get the ones that where designed to be temporary (the ones described in the last 2 paragraphs). sorting out these break-ups would further load down our courts.
Historically (in the US...anything beyond that is irrelevant), being openly gay meant getting openly ridiculed and possibly beaten. Probably kind of hard to maintain a relationship with the constant need to keep it in the closet and having everyone around you tell you that studmuffins are sick deviants that are going to hell. As for adding a burden to our courts? That's great...shall we make that they deciding factor in any issue facing this country henceforth?
SOB
-
Sundown in the Paris of the prairies
Wheat Kings have all their treasures barried
All you hear are the rusty breezes
Hanging around the weather vane Jesus
In a zippo lighter you see the killer's face
Maybe it's someone standing in the killers place
Twenty Years for nothing well that nothing new
Besides no one is interested in what you didn't do
Wheat Kings and pretty things,
Lets just see what the morning brings
There's a dream he dreams where the high school is dead and stark
It's a museum and we're al locked up and after dark up in it and after dark
Where the walls are lined all yellow gray and sinister
Hung with pictures of our parents prime ministers
Wheat Kings and pretty things,
Lets just see what the tomorrow brings
Late breaking story on the CBC,
A nation whispers "we always know he'd go free"
They add "you can't be fond of living in the past,
Cause if you are then there is no way you are going to last"
Wheat Kings and pretty things,
Lets just see what the morning brings
Wheat Kings and pretty things,
Thats what the morning brings
Wheat Kings - Tragically Hip
-
Christ this is too funny to be real.
Now it's because it would bog down the courts?
-
So, do you guys think
-
that this thread will
-
make it to 500 or not?
-
Have you all heard of the separation between church and state?
Good.
All those against gay marriages and benefits based on religious doctrinal reason may all just butt out right now.
This is a non-issue. The church is not needed to get married anymore, and it certainly has no right to voice it's opinion on a legal matter on whether the government passes legislation to enable gay married people to receive the same benefits that hetero couples do.
If you'd like to argue that gay marriages should be banned because of some other reason, fine. But the separation of church and state should immediately cease any further discussion based on religious scripture.
-
Gay marriages should be banned because banana and SOB as a couple is repulsive.
:p
-
Originally posted by hblair
Gay marriages should be banned because banana and SOB as a couple is repulsive.
:p
Hey, SOB is on the waiting list. Sling, Ripsnort and Funkeup are next for me, baby! :D
-
Oh I see how it is, just the old standby, huh?! :(
-
Frog promised us lesbo porn in the squad forum if this thread hits 500.
You people just aren't trying hard enough. You know why? I do. You want to deny us of that porn. You are all evil.
Freud would have loved this thread. Too bad for him, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Frog promised us lesbo porn in the squad forum if this thread hits 500.
.
What can Frog know about lesbo porn?
-
Rude, capt. apathy, can you please explain this.
Sheep study suggests sexual orientation may be genetic
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A study showing a correlation between structural brain differences and sexual preferences in sheep supports an earlier human study that suggested orientation may be genetic.
The study found that a cluster of cells in the preoptic hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to be involved in sexual behavior and partner preference, was larger in male-oriented rams than in female-oriented rams or in ewes.
The research was led by Charles Roselli, a professor at Oregon Health & Science University, with help from scientists at Oregon State University and the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.
"It indicates that there may be a biological (reason) for this sexual preference," Roselli said Monday from Orlando, where he was presenting the study during the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. "This confirms the human studies."
In a human study in 1991, scientists found that a specific cluster of cells in the anterior hypothalamus, a part of the brain, was always larger for heterosexual males than for homosexual men or women. While scientists were careful to label the size difference a correlation rather than the cause of heterosexuality, they said it could indicate that sexual preference was genetic rather than a choice.
In the sheep study, 28 sheep were studied: nine rams that preferred to mate with males, eight rams that preferred to mate with females, and eleven ewes.
Roselli said it was important to do animal studies to confirm the results of the human studies because the research could be more controlled.
"Human studies are post mortem studies ... and you can never be sure whether the disease is what caused the differences. You're also depending on self reporting for sexual preferences," Roselli said. "In an animal study, you can control the behavioral experience the animal has, the social environment they're brought up in and their hormonal exposure as well."
The results of the study were welcomed by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
"While it should not make a difference whether or not one's sexuality is biologically based, the radical right far too often uses the argument of 'sexuality is a choice that can be changed' to justify their calculated discrimination against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community," said Lorri Jean, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Any research suggesting that sexuality is not a choice will help to help defeat that mentality."
-
Originally posted by banana
Have you all heard of the separation between church and state?
Good.
All those against gay marriages and benefits based on religious doctrinal reason may all just butt out right now.
This is a non-issue. The church is not needed to get married anymore, and it certainly has no right to voice it's opinion on a legal matter on whether the government passes legislation to enable gay married people to receive the same benefits that hetero couples do.
If you'd like to argue that gay marriages should be banned because of some other reason, fine. But the separation of church and state should immediately cease any further discussion based on religious scripture.
Well, that just about sums it up, don't it.
Well said my friend. Wish I'd have said it a while back. It would have saved an awful lot of typing in this thread.
-
Originally posted by banana
The church ... and it certainly has no right to voice it's opinion on a legal matter on whether the government passes legislation to enable gay married people to receive the same benefits that hetero couples do.
Nice try but no cigar.
The church does not vote, the religious people do. And they have every right to express their views regardless whether they are result of their religious beliefs or not. Just like the lefties can vote thir marxist concience, or KKK members theirs.
Does not matter where your beliefs are coming from or even whether they are result of your independent thinking. They can be parrotted views of some demagogue, you still have every right to express them.
-
Well... Not all the churches agree... what a surprise... :D
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20030808/ts_nm/religion_episcopal_dc
It's amazing really... so many interpretations and all from the same "word of god".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not as amazing as when you realize the Christians, Jews and Muslims all have the same God. Talk about bickering children!
We do?
-
yes, we do.
Abraham had 2 sons
Ishmael his oldest, though illegitimate son(with the maid)
Isaac, younger son but with his legal wife
they get in a big fight over who gets to inherit the blessing from god (basically 1st born vs. 1st legitimate argument, very para-phrased, for the whole story read Genesis)
Isaac’s descendants became the Jews, Ishmael’s became the Muslims.
Jesus was a Jew, Christianity is focused on him, he didn’t change the god just the way we worship, and assorted rules.
3 religions 1 God
-
and i think its cute how they all bicker and argue over who is most wrong. Its like free entertainment for us agnostics!
They dont understand the fact that they are all wrong. lol's all around.
-
I wonder how many people here are saying homosexuality is a physilogical decision vs a conscious one and still maintaining that "no means no". I mean... isn't that saying at some level it's OK for hormones alone to drive your decision? And... if it can be as simple as just doing what someone says, couldn't you just be straight if someone told you not to be gay?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I wonder how many people here are saying homosexuality is a physilogical decision vs a conscious one and still maintaining that "no means no". I mean... isn't that saying at some level it's OK for hormones alone to drive your decision? And... if it can be as simple as just doing what someone says, couldn't you just be straight if someone told you not to be gay?
MiniD
"Just say NO!" Hmmm....where have I heard that before. :p
Seriously, let me turn that logic around on you. Look into the mirror tonight and tell yourself "No, I don't like women". Please come back and tell us how long it took to convince yourself that you don't.
Ain't gonna happen.
What I'm saying is that hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet, causes each one of us to be attracted to either the same sex, or the opposite sex. Nobody gets to choose.
It is possible to say "Even though I am attracted to women, I won't act on that impulse", but what kind of life would that be?
Are you saying that all gays should become asexual my choice?
In my book, that would be cruel and inhuman punishment for something that is not their fault.
-
What I'm saying is that hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet, causes each one of us to be attracted to either the same sex, or the opposite sex. Nobody gets to choose.
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Did you actually say "nobody get's to choose"? Does this mean the Romans were more likely to have homosexual traights? Or Greeks? I mean, at some point it was a part of their culture. Maybe something changes when you get locked up in prison and are surrounded by nothing but men?
Nah. Its not about choice at all. Its all about genetics.
MiniD
-
Agreed... if the guy has a choice and he has the option of:
A. Cindy Crawford
B. The guy with the hairy ass
He's not going to choose B no matter who he hangs around with. :)
-
well... how hairy is the ass?
-
What I'm saying is that I didn't "choose" to like girls. It just happened. And I'm arguing that the same thing happens to a gay female. When puberty hits, she starts liking girls instead of boys.
Mini-D, when did you choose to start liking girls, and why?
-
I think what you're experience is the only type possible and there are no other ways. I'm sure there has never been a woman that was raped as a child and developed a fear or loathing for men as a result. They must all just be naturally atracted to each other. That's it. Afterall... it was natural for you.
Its a fundamentally flawed argument and I don't believe you'd find a single scientist or sociologist that would agree with the "nobody has a choice" philosophy.
MiniD
-
Mini, you keep dancing around my question.
When did you choose to like girls instead of boys. And why?
-
450... we are getting there, A couple more personal attacks, an insult or two perhaps...
-
Mietla smells like a French outhouse!
SOB
-
Originally posted by mietla
450... we are getting there, A couple more personal attacks, an insult or two perhaps...
Like this?
Just like the lefties can vote thir marxist concience...
Wonder who could've came up with that beauty?
-
I'm not dancing around your question banana. I simply realise that the reason I am straight may or may not have anything to do with the reason why someone else is gay... or even anything to do with the reason why someone else is straight.
It must be a wonderfull world for you banana... one where everything happens exactly the same for everyone around you. You really should return to earth some day where that just isn't the case.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by SOB
Mietla smells like a French outhouse!
SOB
Yeah baby, now we are talking.
-
Originally posted by banana
Just like the lefties can vote thir marxist concience...
Like this?
Wonder who could've came up with that beauty? [/B]
You took this as a personal attack???? LOL
That's just a fact. Everybody can vote however they want. You do not have to justify your vote.
-
Marxists hate being called lefties mietla.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Rude, capt. apathy, can you please explain this.
Sheep study suggests sexual orientation may be genetic
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A study showing a correlation between structural brain differences and sexual preferences in sheep supports an earlier human study that suggested orientation may be genetic.
The study found that a cluster of cells in the preoptic hypothalamus, a region of the brain known to be involved in sexual behavior and partner preference, was larger in male-oriented rams than in female-oriented rams or in ewes.
The research was led by Charles Roselli, a professor at Oregon Health & Science University, with help from scientists at Oregon State University and the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.
"It indicates that there may be a biological (reason) for this sexual preference," Roselli said Monday from Orlando, where he was presenting the study during the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. "This confirms the human studies."
In a human study in 1991, scientists found that a specific cluster of cells in the anterior hypothalamus, a part of the brain, was always larger for heterosexual males than for homosexual men or women. While scientists were careful to label the size difference a correlation rather than the cause of heterosexuality, they said it could indicate that sexual preference was genetic rather than a choice.
In the sheep study, 28 sheep were studied: nine rams that preferred to mate with males, eight rams that preferred to mate with females, and eleven ewes.
Roselli said it was important to do animal studies to confirm the results of the human studies because the research could be more controlled.
"Human studies are post mortem studies ... and you can never be sure whether the disease is what caused the differences. You're also depending on self reporting for sexual preferences," Roselli said. "In an animal study, you can control the behavioral experience the animal has, the social environment they're brought up in and their hormonal exposure as well."
The results of the study were welcomed by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
"While it should not make a difference whether or not one's sexuality is biologically based, the radical right far too often uses the argument of 'sexuality is a choice that can be changed' to justify their calculated discrimination against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community," said Lorri Jean, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Any research suggesting that sexuality is not a choice will help to help defeat that mentality."
It's a study which suggest that genetics MIGHT play a part in sexuality among sheep.
I tend to stand with the thought that humans have a choice whether to act on impulses....unlike animals who do not think at all comparitably.
Believe what ya want...it's your life.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Marxists hate being called lefties mietla.
MiniD
Sorry Marxists. I apologize for giving you a bad name by comparing you to the lefties here.
added the italics
-
Originally posted by Rude
It's a study which suggest that genetics MIGHT play a part in sexuality among sheep.
I tend to stand with the thought that humans have a choice whether to act on impulses....unlike animals who do not think at all comparitably.
Believe what ya want...it's your life.
I have a tendancy to agree with this one... though I do think nature plays a role and makes some decisions harder than others. To imply that no choice is offered goes against human nature.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... Not all the churches agree... what a surprise... :D
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20030808/ts_nm/religion_episcopal_dc
It's amazing really... so many interpretations and all from the same "word of god".
You shouldn't be so easily amazed....this very thing has occured throughout history...especially among the religious.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
yes, we do.
Abraham had 2 sons
Ishmael his oldest, though illegitimate son(with the maid)
Isaac, younger son but with his legal wife
they get in a big fight over who gets to inherit the blessing from god (basically 1st born vs. 1st legitimate argument, very para-phrased, for the whole story read Genesis)
Isaac’s descendants became the Jews, Ishmael’s became the Muslims.
Jesus was a Jew, Christianity is focused on him, he didn’t change the god just the way we worship, and assorted rules.
3 religions 1 God
apathy, the point was trying to get a pagan to come up with the answer. :)
jews and muslims do not worship christ. Christ has been around since the beginning according to john 1. Christ is part of the Godhead according to the bible. Jews and muslims don't even recognize Christ as God.
-
Originally posted by Rude
You shouldn't be so easily amazed....this very thing has occured throughout history...especially among the religious.
Sarcasm is so difficult to achieve. :D
-
i think all you guys just need to get aboard the Man Boat!
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/gl700.jpg)
-
Win
-
one
-
for
-
the
-
SOBber!
-
GO 500!
JOIN THE MISSION!
-
Toad, it shows a complete lack of class to try to artificially push this thread over 500 posts.
-
I mean it.
-
Really.
-
OK, Mini.
-
I see your point.
-
I won't do it again.
-
But I do think I'm adding as much content as some of the posters, don't you?
-
Hey Toad, I've been flyin in the weeds lately.. haven't seen ya. Come keel me!!!
-
500 what?
NwBie
-
Steve, come fly with us some night and we'll show you the difference between "flying low" and fighting. ;)
-
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/schwarz4.gif)
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/chopuy.gif)
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/thumbsup.gif)
-
At 17 kills per hour, I must be doing SOME fighting while low.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I think what you're experience is the only type possible and there are no other ways. I'm sure there has never been a woman that was raped as a child and developed a fear or loathing for men as a result. They must all just be naturally atracted to each other. That's it. Afterall... it was natural for you.
Its a fundamentally flawed argument and I don't believe you'd find a single scientist or sociologist that would agree with the "nobody has a choice" philosophy.
MiniD
I'm afraid you'll find that a lot of scientists/sociologists/psychologists will agree with banana. Check out this psychology module (PS 4203) curriculum (http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/science/psychol/modules/ps4203.htm) at the University of Central Lancashire in the UK for a start.
Do a search for "imprinting" and "ping pong ball" together and you'll come up with Konrad Lorenz, who noticed a duck (or goose - can't remember) that hatched out and was only given a ping pong ball would only follow the ping pong ball and in later life would only have sex with ping pong balls. From this he developed the imprinting theory - that basically sexual preference - and a whole lot more - is determined by what you're exposed to at certain "impressionable" or "imprint vulnerable" times.
Furthermore - even if we accept the argument that it's all a matter of free will, (and you seem to be arguing against yourself somewhat there - by saying it's all free will but it's "only type possible" to choose differently from you) you had no choice over whether you were a boy or a girl, so in a wider sense you still had no control over your "natural" "choice" of liking girls.
And I contend that even the "choice" you made is not as simple as it seems - what sort of girls do you like? Fat chicks? Big boobs? Tall? Short? Big thighs? Small thighs? Blondes? Redheads? Brunettes? Dom/Sub?in Lingerie? in Leather? in Bikinis? plain old naked?
And what sort of sex? Missionary position? Oral sex? Doggy style? S&M? Cross dressing?
Do tell us - and don't forget to state the reason why you chose those preferences.
Sex amongst primates is a much more complicated affair than the artificial hetero/homo divide would have us believe - and as several sex studies have shown, the majority of what society would deem "aberrant", "deviant" or "perverse" sexual behaviour is fairly normal and consequently "natural" human sexual behaviour.
Phew there that should set us up for at least 500.
:D
-
No, you're doing some killing low.
Like I said, come with us. Look you're a good B&Z pilot, even down low.
But that's not what we're talking about. Trust me, you'll have more fun than ever. :)
-
Am I the only one that finds those Arnie pics a bit scary?
-
well homosexuality is not hereditary...
the world is full of confused people. :)
-
Ummm... dead... I do believe you misread the sarcasm intended with that statement. I know that things experienced at times growing up shape what you become... it was someone else that was stating it was predetermined genetically.
I know its alot of work and alot of crap... but you should read through the thread a bit more.
And Toad... I don't think you took me seriously. I'm sorry to see that. And I maintain that your posts are not only NOT better than most in this thread, but scientists have shown that those types of posts occur naturally in 5% of all homosexual marsupials.
MiniD
-
Leave the homosexual marsupials out of this, they've suffered enough damnit!
SOB
-
Enough? No. Maybe when they're burning in the eternal fires of hell they'll understand why samesex intercourse among marsupials is an abomination before God. At least, that's what the Baptist Church I used to go to believes.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
if this thread gets to 500 sob, im gonna find some real good porn for ya.
ooh! Can I have some too? :D
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/po/20030809/co_po/gaycatholicgroupspeaksoutagainstpope&e=1
Gay Catholic group speaks out against pope
Fri Aug 8, 8:13 PM ET
A week after the Vatican condemned same-sex marriages and homosexuality in general, dozens of gay Catholic couples plan to affirm their commitments in Las Vegas Sunday. The group ceremony will cap the 16th convention of Dignity/USA.
The event has become one part of the national gay Catholic organization's answer to those and other papal attacks as the group convenes for the first time since the church's sex-abuse scandal last year. The Vatican blamed the scandal largely on the existence of gay priests.
Both controversies loomed large over the conference as it opened Thursday night with a fiery admonition from Dignity President Patrick McArron, who called the Vatican's actions forms of "spiritual terrorism."
"We have come under vicious attack from within our own church," he told the 300 attendees. "I would be lying to you if I did not say that I have been very angry with the elite old-boys club, and it is time to say, 'No more.' Enough is enough. "
On July 31, the Vatican issued "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," a 12-page edict that branded gay relationships as "against the natural moral law" and warned Catholic politicians around the world that supporting legislation recognizing same-sex couples would be "gravely immoral."
Sunday's ceremony, the first of its kind for a national Dignity conference, will not be a full-fledged Catholic wedding but rather a group affirmation of the couples and their commitments, as some have already had more formal ceremonies. Nonetheless, the long-planned event is taking on a new significance amid the current furor.
"Because the Vatican threw down the gauntlet on this issue of same-sex marriage, the fact that a week later we're doing this blessing will be seen by some as an act of defiance," Dignity Executive Director Marianne Duddy said. "In some ways, it is. We should be allowed -- like all other couples -- to define our own relationships, and to have them honored and celebrated. Making a commitment to another person is a sacred act. It is no less sacred if it's two women or two men than if it's a man and a woman."
Dignity will also issue a new statement on gay marriage, expected to be approved by members on Saturday, that insists there's nothing inconsistent about being gay and Catholic, despite the Vatican's claims. "The love that brings and binds two people of the same, or opposite, sex together has a divine source," the position paper concludes. "It is therefore sacramental in nature, and should be celebrated as such by our church."
That view was backed up Friday by a keynote address from Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former Benedictine monk who for decades has studied the problems created by the requirement that Catholic clergy remain celibate. In his speech, Sipe insisted that the pope misleads the flock by not taking science into account when interpreting the scriptures, and that the Vatican's inappropriate approach to sex fostered an atmosphere that resulted in widespread sexual abuse by priests.
"I do not hesitate to say that the church's teaching on human sexuality is not correct," Sipe said. "Its basis of biblical revelation and interpretation is insufficient to account for the realities we already know."
Wow, gay and Catholic. I wonder if they believe they're going to hell when they die?
SOB
-
A recent poll in Canada indicated that 57% of Catholics here support same sex marriages.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
A recent poll in Canada indicated that 57% of Catholics here support same sex marriages.
"Catholics"
-
"What" "about" it" "?"
-
Well, they cant really be Catholics if they ignore what the Pope say, now can they...?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, they cant really be Catholics if they ignore what the Pope say, now can they...?
They are unless they are excommunicated.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, they cant really be Catholics if they ignore what the Pope say, now can they...?
dumb
-
Originally posted by OIO
well homosexuality is not hereditary...
the world is full of confused people. :)
dumber
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
if this thread gets to 500 sob, im gonna find some real good porn for ya.
pay up
-
501 on the way to 1k
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ummm... dead... I do believe you misread the sarcasm intended with that statement. I know that things experienced at times growing up shape what you become... it was someone else that was stating it was predetermined genetically.
I know its alot of work and alot of crap... but you should read through the thread a bit more.
As it's a subject that's obviously close to your heart, I offer you this salutary lesson in the perils of poor reading comprehension with extra highlighting for for your edification and entertainment:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'm saying is that hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet, causes each one of us to be attracted to either the same sex, or the opposite sex. Nobody gets to choose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Did you actually say "nobody get's to choose"? Does this mean the Romans were more likely to have homosexual traights? Or Greeks? I mean, at some point it was a part of their culture. Maybe something changes when you get locked up in prison and are surrounded by nothing but men?
Nah. Its not about choice at all. Its all about genetics.
MiniD
If you read closely, you'll note that banana does not imply it's anything to do with genetics. He suggests "hormones, or something that the medical/scientific community does not understand yet" are to blame. Not very genetic at all.
Earlier in the thread (which, in a surprise twist, it turns out I had bothered reading, thank you for your kind concern) Thrawn posted an article that is headlined "Sheep study suggests sexual orientation may be genetic". This elicited no direct reply from you, whilst banana's did - and with quotes no less - so I did assume you were merely refuting banana's (non genetic cause) position.
However, if you actually get past the headline and intro of the Thrawn piece and read the whole thing - you'll find that none of the scientists actually quoted go so far as to suggest that it may be genetic at all. The closest Charles Roselli, the researcher, offers is "It indicates that there may be a biological (reason) for this sexual preference". Biological doesn't mean genetic. Sure, the piece goes on to say (about the 1991 LeVay study) "While scientists were careful to label the size difference a correlation rather than the cause of heterosexuality, they said it could indicate that sexual preference was genetic rather than a choice" - the "could indicate" implies that genetics is only one option, and (having done a little research) the scientists are leaning towards genetics as a possibility because this correlation - the size of the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus - is a product of prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation. This would certainly preclude the sizing being the result of a choice, but without further studies the point is still moot. And again this does not preclude a non-genetic cause, such as banana suggests.
In fact the first person in this thread to be so bold as to explictly suggest sexual preferences are genetically determined is your good self, albeit sarcastically (or so I presume). So the whole genetics issue (at least on this thread of the BBS) appears to be something of a straw man of your own making (although a few others in the religious camp [no pun intended, honest] have helped). Particularly in the context of banana's post to which you replied.
However, it's probably a good idea to point out that the discovery that sexual preferences do not have a genetic cause would not invalidate the hypothesis that sexual preferences are not a concious choice. Environmental causes - which you believe can shape the psyche (if I'm reading you right and you're not being sarcastic) - would also not be a concious choice. Neither would banana's hypothesis of hormones or an as-yet-unknown agent.
As to my misreading of the sarcasm intended with the 'Its[sic] a fundamentally flawed argument and I don't believe you'd find a single scientist or sociologist that would agree with the "nobody has a choice" philosophy' statement - I was indeed unaware that the comment was meant sarcastically, and I did think you were being serious. Guilty as charged. And so I refuted this claim. But in my defence I do have to point out that normally sarcasm is a tonal thing, which just doesn't come across on a BBS. You might want to try using comments or something when there is this level of ambiguity involved.
It's great to see SOB cleared the 500 mark.
-
So, do I get some sort of button or something?
"I started a retarded thread, and all I got was this stupid button!"
-
i think you deserve some sort of gay custom title.