Homosexuality morally wrong? [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

Void Image

11-09-2005, 11:39 PM

I've noticed a lot of debate going on concerning the topic of homosexuality and more importantly, gay marriage. A lot of people that don't like homosexuality. I'm curious as to why some people think this way. So...

I want to hear WHY homosexuality is morally wrong. Please leave religion out of this. Some words in a book don't make for an argument. I challenge anyone out there to give a good reason as to why homosexuality is bad.

To save some time, I'll get a few of the common answers out of the way now.

It's unclean
I won't go into details here, but you know what I mean. The couple may come into contact with unclean substances. But there is no logic in this argument. If cleanliness or lack thereof makes something good or bad, does this make gardening morally wrong? Is contact with fertilizer wrong?

It's a misuse of their body parts
The purpose of your hair is to keep your body warm. Does this mean cutting it is morally wrong? Reducing the amount of hair is certainly malproductive for the hair itself. The purpose of pain and it's physiological make-up is to notify your brain when something's wrong. When you take tylenol, is this morally wrong?

If society accepted homosexuality, more people would become homosexuals
While I can't speak from experience here, I'm pretty sure that when you're gay, you're gay. I have never woken up one day and asked myself "Hm..do I feel gay today?" Even if this were true, the fact that homosexuality is wrong would need to be established first anyways. The way I see it, this is a plus. Population grows exponentially, and overpopulation is beginning to become a big problem in the U.S., and already is in many other nations.

The majority of society thinks it's wrong, so it's wrong
There was a time when the majority of America believed slavery was perfectly acceptable. Did this make it right? Does the majority have the right to decide what's right and wrong? If the majority of Americans decided murder was OK tomorrow, would you go ahead and kill people?

So...anything?

Scaryclouds

11-09-2005, 11:49 PM

It's unclean
I won't go into details here, but you know what I mean. The couple may come into contact with unclean substances. But there is no logic in this argument. If cleanliness or lack thereof makes something good or bad, does this make gardening morally wrong? Is contact with fertilizer wrong?

I not 100% sure about this but homosexual "interactions" carry a higher risk of transmittign an STD. But all "interactions" carry a risk of this happening.

Also a couple other reasons why homosexuality isn't good is: can a homosexual couple naturally have a child? And if every person was gay wouldn't that cause human extinction? (when considering the latter believe that science wasn't advance enough to artifically impregnate a woman and everbody absolutly believed in fedelity) I know these are extreme case scenarios but its a couple of reason that I don't believe in homosexuality. I'm not saying I am agianst equal rights for gays but I just don't think homosexuality should be promoted.

MikeD4o7

11-09-2005, 11:52 PM

Scaryclouds

11-09-2005, 11:55 PM

Look I was strictly speaking from a biological and hypothetical stand points. Ignore the actual practicality.

Void Image

11-10-2005, 12:04 AM

I not 100% sure about this but homosexual "interactions" carry a higher risk of transmittign an STD. But all "interactions" carry a risk of this happening.

You are correct, there are many different forms of bacteria that live in the lower intestine. But as you said, all interactions carry a risk of this happening. If your wife somehow acquired herpes by some freak medical accident, would it be wrong to continue to love her? Or would you just properly protect yourself and go on with life?

Also a couple other reasons why homosexuality isn't good is: can a homosexual couple naturally have a child?

No they can't have a child. But you haven't made the link between unable to have a child and it's conflict with morality. I think this is just a reworded 'misuse of organs' argument. A sterile couple can't have kids either, does that make it wrong? Don't say homosexuality is a choice, because NO ONE would CHOOSE to be homosexual these days, especially in American society. You are either attracted to men or you aren't.

And if every person was gay wouldn't that cause human extinction? (when considering the latter believe that science wasn't advance enough to artifically impregnate a woman and everbody absolutly believed in fedelity) I know these are extreme case scenarios but its a couple of reason that I don't believe in homosexuality. I'm not saying I am agianst equal rights for gays but I just don't think homosexuality should be promoted.

Do you feel gay today? Will you feel gay tomorrow? Homosexuality does not spread like some kind of disease. It's a choice. There will never be a world full of nothing but homosexuals. But for the sake of argument lets say this does happen. Now we have the same number of men, and the same number of women, just homosexual. I'm sure we'd be intelligent enough to say 'Uh..guys? Maybe we should do something?" If we are stupid enough to voluntarily destroy the human race then it's probably better we get on with it. I'm sure a few guys and a few of the ladyfolk would take one for the team, and humanity.

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 12:24 AM

I not 100% sure about this but homosexual "interactions" carry a higher risk of transmittign an STD. But all "interactions" carry a risk of this happening.

You are wrong.

The gender of the sexual partners does not increase or decrease the risk of transmitting STD's.

Also a couple other reasons why homosexuality isn't good is: can a homosexual couple naturally have a child? And if every person was gay wouldn't that cause human extinction?

But homosexuals make up a small minority, the overwhelming majority of the population are heterosexuals who are able of producing children. So that should not be a matter of concern for you.

What should be a matter of concern from this point of view is the use of contraceptives by heterosexuals.

Since you are worried about human extinction, I take you are strongly opposed to the use of contraceptives among heterosexual couples?

I'm not saying I am agianst equal rights for gays but I just don't think homosexuality should be promoted.

Homosexuals are homosexual simply because they are, not because of promotion.

Or did you become a heterosexual because of promotion?

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 12:31 AM

You are correct, there are many different forms of bacteria that live in the lower intestine. But as you said, all interactions carry a risk of this happening. If your wife somehow acquired herpes by some freak medical accident, would it be wrong to continue to love her? Or would you just properly protect yourself and go on with life?

But all homosexual interactions carry that inherent hightened risk compared to hetrosexual interactions.

No they can't have a child. But you haven't made the link between unable to have a child and it's conflict with morality. I think this is just a reworded 'misuse of organs' argument. A sterile couple can't have kids either, does that make it wrong? Don't say homosexuality is a choice, because NO ONE would CHOOSE to be homosexual these days, especially in American society. You are either attracted to men or you aren't.

But often a sterile couple dosn't knwo it before going into their relationship. While an homosexua; company inherently knows that.

Do you feel gay today? Will you feel gay tomorrow? Homosexuality does not spread like some kind of disease. It's a choice. There will never be a world full of nothing but homosexuals. But for the sake of argument lets say this does happen. Now we have the same number of men, and the same number of women, just homosexual. I'm sure we'd be intelligent enough to say 'Uh..guys? Maybe we should do something?" If we are stupid enough to voluntarily destroy the human race then it's probably better we get on with it. I'm sure a few guys and a few of the ladyfolk would take one for the team, and humanity.

I don't know I think there is a bit of greyness when it comes to homosexuality. Perhapes some people are born gay but I also believe some people choose to be gay or some turn gay because of psychological reasons (abused as a child). I believe there is enough evidence or scenarios to support all three scenarios I gave. Also as for everybody turning gay I also said that everybody beleive in fedelity that is not cheating on your partner wife husband whatever.

Also I really can't say whether or something is morally wrong as much of socital morality comes from religion when it comes to more subtle things like this (you don't needreligion to knwo that murder is morally reprehensible). And I don't think personal opinion would have much effective weight in this argument.

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 12:34 AM

But all homosexual interactions carry that inherent hightened risk compared to hetrosexual interactions

No. How?

But often a sterile couple dosn't knwo it before going into their relationship. While an homosexua; company inherently knows that.

And your point being?

I don't know I think there is a bit of greyness when it comes to homosexuality. Perhapes some people are born gay but I also believe some people choose to be gay or some turn gay because of psychological reasons (abused as a child). I believe there is enough evidence or scenarios to support all three scenarios I gave. Also as for everybody turning gay I also said that everybody beleive in fedelity that is not cheating on your partner wife husband whatever.

I can't speak for you, but there's nothing "grey" about my sexuality.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 12:36 AM

[QUOTE]I not 100% sure about this but homosexual "interactions" carry a higher risk of transmittign an STD. But all "interactions" carry a risk of this happening.
Actually I believe (I could be wrong though)I believe it is teens 15-19,,, two of those years they are actually adults. Should we outlaw 18 and 19 yr olds from having sex and or getting married. Because I am sure it would help out a lot. :rolleyes:

Also a couple other reasons why homosexuality isn't good is: can a homosexual couple naturally have a child?
A good very many straight couples can not have a child "naturally" should they not be allowed to marry. Can they not have children throught invetro fertilization, host mothers, any other scienctific method to help people conceive or get a child.

And if every person was gay wouldn't that cause human extinction?
NO

(when considering the latter believe that science wasn't advance enough to artifically impregnate a woman and everbody absolutly believed in fedelity)
Absurd.

I know these are extreme case scenarios but its a couple of reason that I don't believe in homosexuality.
They are BS scenarios,,, Any viable reasons.

I'm not saying I am agianst equal rights for gays but I just don't think homosexuality should be promoted.
Homosexuality isn't being promoted by allowing them to marry, gay recruiters aren't going to show up at high schools and junior high's trying to get them young, so yes you are against equal rights for gays.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 12:40 AM

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 12:44 AM

You know what fine I'm sorry for having the opinion that heterosexuality should be prefered over homosexuality. I'm sorry you can't read subtle but fairly obivious comments in my post. You expect me to prove how homosexuality is morally wrong but don't allow me to use the bible. Its like trying to prove a person is a murderer without using any evidence.

I'm sorry that you make statements and then refuse to back them up with neighter empirical facts nor logic reasoning.

You are free to use the bible, but it doesn't make much sense to try using it as evidence in a debate with people who do not believe in the bible.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 12:44 AM

Homosexuality isn't being promoted by allowing them to marry, gay recruiters aren't going to show up at high schools and junior high's trying to get them young, so yes you are against equal rights for gays.

I never said I was agianst allowing homosexuals to marry. I'm just saying society shouldn't actively promote homosexuality and no I do not fear homo recruiters showing up in a school. And no I am not agianst equal rights.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 12:45 AM

You know what fine I'm sorry for having the opinion that heterosexuality should be prefered over homosexuality. I'm sorry you can't read subtle but fairly obivious comments in my post. You expect me to prove how homosexuality is morally wrong but don't allow me to use the bible. Its like trying to prove a person is a murderer without using any evidence.

Just come out and say you believe it to be morally wrong, Morals are subjective and they are based of your opinion. If you want yourr base to be from a old arse book then that is fine. Just say it.. it is ok,,, people can hold their own beliefs.

It is actually pretty easy to prove a person a murderer without using evidence. at least in some of the courts across this country and many others. :D

eugene40

11-10-2005, 12:47 AM

I never said I was agianst allowing homosexuals to marry. I'm just saying society shouldn't actively promote homosexuality and no I do not fear homo recruiters showing up in a school. And no I am not agianst equal rights.

Allowing them to marry isn't promoting homosexuality. It is allowing them to marry which is a given right to all save for them,, that should be equal, so to clarify how again are you not against equal rights?

Senor Herberto

11-10-2005, 12:50 AM

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 12:52 AM

eugene40

11-10-2005, 12:53 AM

Senor Herberto

11-10-2005, 12:55 AM

i think the ceremony legally binding two homosexuals should be performed by the state and not the church. even if they have equal legal statuses.

Senor Herberto

11-10-2005, 12:58 AM

there is a certain level of dignity in what you will rub your penis / vagina on. if your judgement of what to do this with and what to think about yourself when you do is homosexual in nature, then you have certain arguably deviant mental conditions going on, which can be explained in terms as plain or technical as you care to.

extend this concept to people who love animals, people who have various fetishes. it is known that most fetishes are linked to experiences in childhood or other social elements understood, communicated, or expressed, or represented by that act.

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 12:59 AM

i think the ceremony legally binding two homosexuals should be performed by the state and not the church. even if they have equal legal statuses.

I think the ceremony legally binding two homosexuals or two heterosexuals should be performed by the state and not the church.

Let the state deal with the legal business, if someone wants a religous blessing of their partnership they can do so in a church afterwards.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 01:00 AM

I'm sorry that you make statements and then refuse to back them up with neighter empirical facts nor logic reasonig.

You are free to use the bible, but it doesn't make much sense to try using it as evidence in a debate with people who do not belive in the bible.

For homosexuality causing more STD cases per capita there is evidence to support that

In the United States, HIV-related illness and death historically have had a tremendous impact on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM continue to account for the largest number of people reported with AIDS each year.

http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/population/men.asp

Though I will volunteer that is the only thing I found but I also only did 5 mins of searching. :D

Look I know I am talking in extreme case scenarios and not allowing the use of current science technology or perhapes common logic (not on my part nessecarily but in a described hypothetical situation) I know that. But lets look at it from an evolutionary stand point could species survive if they where entirely gay (not nessecarily just humans)? Be it the first two of the species or later on down the road. I know this would never happen it just won't I am just saying that a homosexual couple can not naturally reproduce and that should be an indicator that perhapes it could be wrong.

Also I am not free to use the bible Void Image said that we shouldn't use it so out of respect of the terms set in this thread I will not use the bible.

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 01:01 AM

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 01:03 AM

For homosexuality causing more STD cases per capita there is evidence to support that

But explain to us, what exactly in homosexual acts is it that makes it more likely to cause STD?

eugene40

11-10-2005, 01:05 AM

[QUOTE]there is a certain level of dignity in what you will rub your penis / vagina on. if your judgement of what to do this with and what to think about yourself when you do is homosexual in nature, then you have certain arguably deviant mental conditions going on, which can be explained in terms as plain or technical as you care to.
what is deviant to one is norm to others. It isn't a mental condition sometimes it is just a choice. like the choice to believe in god or not to believe in god.

extend this concept to people who love animals, people who have various fetishes. it is known that most fetishes are linked to experiences in childhood or other social elements understood, communicated, or expressed, or represented by that act.

Hardly, this isn't going to lead to widespread beastiality or whatever you are trying to imply. And fetishes sometimes are just what pleases a person, some are carried over from somehing to do with their childhood or their first sexual experience. But not all, you are trying to apply psychological theories to all when they only apply to a slim few.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 01:06 AM

Allowing them to marry isn't promoting homosexuality. It is allowing them to marry which is a given right to all save for them,, that should be equal, so to clarify how again are you not against equal rights?

Ok now you are grossly misrepresnting what I said.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 01:09 AM

But explain to us, what exactly in homosexual acts is it that cause more STD?

I am not a person who studies sexual interactions so I can't say exactly why. You asked for evidence and I provided it from the CDC.

JD3

11-10-2005, 01:10 AM

For homosexuality causing more STD cases per capita there is evidence to support that

http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/population/men.asp

Though I will volunteer that is the only thing I found but I also only did 5 mins of searching. :D

Look I know I am talking in extreme case scenarios and not allowing the use of current science technology or perhapes common logic (not on my part nessecarily but in a described hypothetical situation) I know that. But lets look at it from an evolutionary stand point could species survive if they where entirely gay (not nessecarily just humans)? Be it the first two of the species or later on down the road. I know this would never happen it just won't I am just saying that a homosexual couple can not naturally reproduce and that should be an indicator that perhapes it could be wrong.

Also I am not free to use the bible Void Image said that we shouldn't use it so out of respect of the terms set in this thread I will not use the bible.

I thought these were helpful:

IF homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.

Andrea Camperio-Ciani's team at the University of Padua, Italy, asked 98 gay and 100 straight men to fill in questionnaires about their families. They found mothers and aunts had more children if related to a gay rather than a straight man. Mothers of gay men averaged 2.7 babies, compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. Aunts on the mother's side had 2 babies compared with 1.5 for maternal aunts of straight men (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004).

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800

A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.

The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008

"Gay men adopt male and female strategies. Therefore their brains are a sexual mosaic," explains Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist who led the study at the University of East London, UK. "It's not simply that lesbians have men's brains and gay men have women's brains."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7069

Source: University Of Illinois At Chicago

Date: 2005-01-31
Print this page

Email to friend

Genetic Regions Influencing Male Sexual Orientation Identified
In the first-ever study combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, a University of Illinois at Chicago researcher has identified several areas that appear to influence whether a man is heterosexual or gay.

(snip)

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski, a psychologist in the UIC department of psychiatry and lead author of the study. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

The genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers were analyzed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221107.htm

Marrying would help slow the spread of disease for homosexuals much the same way it did for hetrosexuals. There are real world reasons why marriage was first encouraged. Besides competition for females, there was the need to slow promiscurity. And it is highly unlikely that as a species we would give up on reproducing. The drive is still there and far too strong to take away because of the few that have always been here. When it was accepted and promoted, such did not happen.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 01:12 AM

I can't speak for you, but there's nothing "grey" about my sexuality.

I was saying that all people who are gay were not nessecarily born gay they may of become gay at some other point in their life for some other reason.

Soc.Dem.

11-10-2005, 01:15 AM

I am not a person who studies sexual interactiosn so I can't say exactly why. You asked for evidence and I provided it from the CDC.

You simply provided a statistic that showes that homosexual men has a higher procentage of STD cases per capita than the average population.

If I showed you a statistic that showes that Africans has a higher procentage of STD cases per capita than the average population, would you say that their race and ethnic origin causes STD?

Void Image

11-10-2005, 01:17 AM

But all homosexual interactions carry that inherent hightened risk compared to hetrosexual interactions. But often a sterile couple dosn't knwo it before going into their relationship. While an homosexua; company inherently knows that.

Yes..but if contact with disease regardless of the chances involved is morally wrong then that makes anyone in the healthcare industry wrong. If you fall in love someone who contracted HIV (perhaps not a direct choice, but a choice nonetheless. If you're banging someone and aren't sure if they have a disease or not, you're asking for it), is sex morally wrong now?

I don't know I think there is a bit of greyness when it comes to homosexuality. Perhapes some people are born gay but I also believe some people choose to be gay or some turn gay because of psychological reasons (abused as a child). I believe there is enough evidence or scenarios to support all three scenarios I gave. Also as for everybody turning gay I also said that everybody believe in fedelity that is not cheating on your partner wife husband whatever.

There is no choosing to be gay. You are either attracted to members of your own sex or not. If this is the result of psychological reasons, then they are still not to be blamed for the decision.

Also I really can't say whether or something is morally wrong as much of socital morality comes from religion when it comes to more subtle things like this (you don't need religion to knwo that murder is morally reprehensible). And I don't think personal opinion would have much effective weight in this argument.

That's what I'm trying to show here, scaryclouds. I want someone to give me a good, solid reason without quoting their bible. As for morality coming from religion, maybe a little bit. Morality is more than religion, though. It's a question..and it's applied differently in diferent societies. But I believe we can break it all down in philosophical examination. Is this wrong, or right?

JoeR

11-10-2005, 01:17 AM

I am not a person who studies sexual interactiosn so I can't say exactly why. You asked for evidence and I provided it from the CDC.

Funny that when you say homosexual acts, you only talk about men.

I'm guessing its due to promiscuity, tendency to not use a condom, and STDs pass easier through small tears in the anal cavity.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 01:18 AM

[QUOTE]For homosexuality causing more STD cases per capita there is evidence to support that
Oh for crying out loud,, per capita of course,, there is a severe minority of gay people,, if a portion of them contract an STD the proportion is going to be higher due to their small number in the population. Straight people with STD's far outweigh gay people with STD's.

I know that. But lets look at it from an evolutionary stand point could species survive if they where entirely gay (not nessecarily just humans)?
You know there are several species in the animal kingdom that are A sexual and reproduce all by their lonesome. And we are not like the rest of the Animals in the kingdom,, we have this advanced brain and opposable thumbs and we can a do create technology to deal with such problems.

Be it the first two of the species or later on down the road. I know this would never happen it just won't I am just saying that a homosexual couple can not naturally reproduce and that should be an indicator that perhapes it could be wrong.
Again why, it is not the entire population that is homosexual. Not in any specie on the planet. And again we are human beings, we can survive and evolve.

Also I am not free to use the bible Void Image said that we shouldn't use it so out of respect of the terms set in this thread I will not use the bible.

So you need a book to develope your ideas and beliefs. Can't you merely say I as Scarycloud, man, human being, whatever think homosexuality is wrong. I would not like to see them get married. it is that easy, you do not need a book, there is no moral high ground because morals are a flat plain where are all equal.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 01:19 AM

Ok now you are grossly misrepresnting what I said.

Then set me straight because that is what it sounds like you are saying.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 01:33 AM

Funny that when you say homosexual acts, you only talk about men.

I'm guessing its due to promiscuity, tendency to not use a condom, and STDs pass easier through small tears in the anal cavity.

I never talked just about men just the evidence I gave was about men. In truth I believe I left gender out of the equation when I talked about homosexuality.

You know there are several species in the animal kingdom that are A sexual and reproduce all by their lonesome. And we are not like the rest of the Animals in the kingdom,, we have this advanced brain and opposable thumbs and we can a do create technology to deal with such problems.

Really name 1. And no worms need another partner to reproduce.

So you need a book to develope your ideas and beliefs. Can't you merely say I as Scarycloud, man, human being, whatever think homosexuality is wrong. I would not like to see them get married. it is that easy, you do not need a book, there is no moral high ground because morals are a flat plain where are all equal.

Of course I can form my opinions but this thread was lookign for evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong not opinions.

Then set me straight because that is what it sounds like you are saying.

I said gay couples deserve the right to marry how is that being against equal rights? For the socital promotion I am not asking for and would be agaisnt government intervention I just kind of wish people move away from the thought that homosexuality is good/ok. I but I am not asking for suspicion, exaggeration, and lack of understanding of homosexuality. I am not a homophobe I have met many gay and by people I have no problems with them and except for sexual orientation they are people just like me. I just don't think people should promote homsexual orientation.

Void Image

11-10-2005, 01:38 AM

Also I am not free to use the bible Void Image said that we shouldn't use it so out of respect of the terms set in this thread I will not use the bible.

Thank you :) If bible passages were allowed, all we'd get is biblical cross-fire for 10 consecutive pages. I just want someone to tell me why it's wrong. A simple question

So you need a book to develope your ideas and beliefs. Can't you merely say I as Scarycloud, man, human being, whatever think homosexuality is wrong. I would not like to see them get married. it is that easy, you do not need a book, there is no moral high ground because morals are a flat plain where are all equal.

Exactly. Here, the argument can't be won by flipping to a certain page and typing out "gay marriage is a sin". I want something logical

eugene40

11-10-2005, 01:45 AM

[QUOTE]

Really name 1. And no worms need another partner to reproduce.

Heliozoa, Amoeba, and Euglena all reproduce by binary fission, which is the mother cell dividing into two daughter cells. The Heliozoa and Amoeba belong to the Protista Kingdom. The Euglena is a one celled plant that sometimes have characteristics of a protist. Heliozoa live in fresh water and have pencil like axopods that aid in eating. Amoebas live in fresh water.

Of course I can form my opinions but this thread was lookign for evidence as to why homosexuality is morally wrong not opinions.

Morals are opinions.. it is morally wrong bby your morals. That is pretty easy to say and requires no evidence whatso ever.

I said gay couples deserve the right to marry how is that being against equal rights?
There you go, you set me straight. I misinterpreted what you said and I appologize.

For the socital promotion I am not asking for and would be agaisnt government intervention I just kind of wish people move away from the thought that homosexuality is good/ok.
So it is Bad and not ok. Why, it brings no damage with it.

I but I am not asking for suspicion, exaggeration, and lack of understanding of homosexuality. I am not a homophobe I have met many gay and by people I have no problems with them and except for sexual orientation they are people just like me.
They are people, all people are created differently, Is it bad that they were created differently. And that is a pretty big problem to have with someone one's sexual orientation is a huge part of their lives.

I just don't think people should promote homsexual orientation.
I think you need to explain further how it promotes homosexuality, Because for most you are either homosexual or heterosexual and neither the two shall meet. except in starbucks :D

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 01:53 AM

I think you need to explain further how it promotes homosexuality,

Define "it" in the context of the sentence.

rjamortega

11-10-2005, 01:53 AM

I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with basic homosexuality. I think it is primarily a matter of risky behaviour due mainly to the base male nature. Because of this various societies and religions have developed laws for the purpose of stigmatizing and hopefully reducing homo behaviour so as to save the gay from himself. Unfortunately along with this comes a lot of religious believers who distort and radicalize the religious teachings.

Where there is immorality in homosexuality is in the same place we find it in heterosexuality. That is infidelity after the promise of a monogamous committment. But two gay men or women devoted to eachother are not an immoral union.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 01:54 AM

Define "it" in the context of the sentence.

sorry,, people promote it.

Void Image

11-10-2005, 02:01 AM

You simply provided a statistic that showes that homosexual men has a higher procentage of STD cases per capita than the average population.

If I showed you a statistic that showes that Africans has a higher procentage of STD cases per capita than the average population, would you say that their race and ethnic origin causes STD?

I understand what scaryclouds is trying to say, or at least I think I do. In the case of two men, they will be exposed to the many different bacteria in the rectum which can cause disease. However this is no different than sitting down on a public toilet. With the proper protection and cleanliness there is nothing to worry about. Between women, there is nothing that would cause an increased chance of catching an STD. You can't use diseases to defend your case against homosexuality. There is a risk in any sexual encounter, but sex is still not morally wrong. Every time you shake hands with someone you are at risk of catching a disease of some sort.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 02:05 AM

They are people, all people are created differently, Is it bad that they were created differently. And that is a pretty big problem to have with someone one's sexual orientation is a huge part of their lives.

I never said they where anymore or less human because of being gay. If I fidn otu a person is gay I will admit my opinion of them will change but it won't nessecarily be positivie or negative just different.

And as far as society promoting homosexuality I you just pick up some of those vibes when I watch enough TV. I can't really provide empirical evidence.

eugene40

11-10-2005, 02:07 AM

I understand what scaryclouds is trying to say, or at least I think I do. In the case of two men, they will be exposed to the many different bacteria in the rectum which can cause disease. However this is no different than sitting down on a public toilet. With the proper protection and cleanliness there is nothing to worry about. Between women, there is nothing that would cause an increased chance of catching an STD. You can't use diseases to defend your case against homosexuality. There is a risk in any sexual encounter, but sex is still not morally wrong. Every time you shake hands with someone you are at risk of catching a disease of some sort.

Good post,,, just to add though,,,, not all gay men have anal sex... the majority do but not all. And heterosexuals also partake in anal sex.

Also,,, there is more bacteria on doorknobs and escalator rails then toilet seats. Unless well someone takes a crap on the seat or something. But then you need to ask yourself do I really need to go that bad.

Void Image

11-10-2005, 02:14 AM

I think homosexuality is the symptom of a damaged socio-sexual understanding caused either by brain region gender chemical imbalance or mis learned behaviors stemming from physical or social abuse early in life combined with certain personality types.

...........wow. If you're referring to testosterone and estrogen..you would be wrong. I find it interesting you connect abuse and homosexuality..as if it was a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Association doesn't agree with you.

"In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled by changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Their decision was supported in 1974 by a vote of the membership."

Take a look here
"In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980)."

You can educate yourself here, Senor, I think your theory needs a little tweaking.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

eugene40

11-10-2005, 02:14 AM

[QUOTE]I never said they where anymore or less human because of being gay. If I fidn otu a person is gay I will admit my opinion of them will change but it won't nessecarily be positivie or negative just different.
Ok, fair enough but why would your opinion of them change at all. Are they not the same person.

And as far as society promoting homosexuality I you just pick up some of those vibes when I watch enough TV. I can't really provide empirical evidence.
Ok, so is it just brining it to the equality of the promotion of heterosexuality or is it more so then promotion of heterosexuality. Is it just tying to show the lifestyles (though I am told it is not really like that) of homosexuals in order for people to better understand that heck they are just people too. Is it forced,,, heck I just switched the channels all around and saw not a one thing on homosexuality. I don't care if you provide empirical evidence,, just provide what you view and observe are promotion of homsexuality.

ZXL

11-10-2005, 02:17 AM

This might help:

Homosexual behavior is common in the Animal Kingdom, especially in species closer to humans on the evolutionary scale, such as the great apes. Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexuality, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males.

* Male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring [4]. German and Japanese zoos have also reported homosexuality among their penguins. This phenomenon has also been reported at Kelly Tarlton's Aquarium in Auckland, New Zealand. [5]

* Courtship, mounting, and full anal penetration between bulls is common among American bison. The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behavior, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season [6]." Also, mounting of one female by another is common among cattle. (See also, Freemartin. Freemartins occur because of clearly causal hormonal factors at work during gestation.)

* Homosexuality in male sheep (found in 6–10% of rams) is associated with variations in cerebral mass distribution and chemical activity. A study reported in Endocrinology concluded that biological factors are in play; this study replicated similar findings in humans. It shows that approximately 10% of males are homosexual and that the brains of homosexual males are different. [7].

From Wikipedia. And if you want a full article on other species which can be gay here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

I'm pretty sure that being gay is biological, just as the studies suggest. Which in my opinion takes away the whole moral or no discussion. There simply isn't anything you can do about it. Besides why would anyone choose to be gay in this society? Most people don't respect you and treat you as subhuman, wouldn't everyone choose to be heterosexual then?

And as mentioned before, I think being gay is just a way of nature of protecting against overpopulation. I don't ever think there were supposed to be so many humans, since we don't really have any natural predators to keep our population in check. The same could be true for the other animals that are gay.

And finally, perhaps the best measure of morality without using religion might be "Does this choice/act/whatever harm yourself or anyone else?". Think about it, all things that are 'moral' have a negative answer to this question, and immoral usually positive, at least in my case. Being gay does not harm you, not anymore than being heterosexual since STDs are transmittable by both. If your neighbour is gay it won't harm you, it won't make your children gay nor kill them. It won't poison your crops, or kill your pets or suddenly give you STDs when you shake hands with him or her either.

Senor Herberto

11-10-2005, 02:42 AM

"Let the state deal with the legal business, if someone wants a religous blessing of their partnership they can do so in a church afterwards."

wow that one really surprised me.

marraige, the love and unity of a man and woman, is God's by design. thanking God for life and the love of your partner is wonderful. as a religious non-officiary i just don't think I could ask God to bless a homosexual relationship. could i pray for them to be happy healthy and peaceful and grow closer in love to God? of course.

Hardly, this isn't going to lead to widespread beastiality or whatever you are trying to imply. And fetishes sometimes are just what pleases a person, some are carried over from somehing to do with their childhood or their first sexual experience. But not all, you are trying to apply psychological theories to all when they only apply to a slim few.

i am not talking about widespread bestiality. i am pointing out the concept of the few cases of bestiality where marriyng that animal is wrong. so is child man marraige or whatever else deviance out there that is illegal and scary and the product of serious damage. i am not linking homosexuality to bestiality. i am saying there are some things you shouldn't ****. or marry.

Scaryclouds

11-10-2005, 02:52 AM

Ok, fair enough but why would your opinion of them change at all. Are they not the same person.

I'm being realistic. If I had no incling that a person was gay and then found out they where my opinion would naturally change. Not to say beign gay is anywher near as bad as this but if you found out your neighbor was a convicted felon many many years back would your opinion of them change? But would they not also remain the same person? I'm just beign realistic I'm not going to lie just to make my self look better.

Is it forced,,, heck I just switched the channels all around and saw not a one thing on homosexuality. I don't care if you provide empirical evidence,, just provide what you view and observe are promotion of homsexuality.

I'm not saying everyday I see stuff about homosexuality but every so once awhile I do. As far as an observation I remember a few months back I was watching a show called 30 days of FX and on this episode it had a "straight laced god loving Texas republican" go live with a gay man in the Castro in San Francisco. Overall I felt it was a good program but I jsut kind of noticed that the way the program was presented the guy from Texas was the problem. I am not trying to say either side was right or wrong but I just feel it was kind of slanted like the gays in the programs where smarter and generally better people than the guy from Texas and that they really had little to learn compared to the guy from Texas. So that is how sometimes I feel the media promotes homosexuality. But then again I maybe misinterpreting.

Void Image

11-10-2005, 03:24 AM

Hardly, this isn't going to lead to widespread beastiality or whatever you are trying to imply. And fetishes sometimes are just what pleases a person, some are carried over from somehing to do with their childhood or their first sexual experience. But not all, you are trying to apply psychological theories to all when they only apply to a slim few.

I don't see where you're going with beastiality...and I wasn't trying to imply anything. You stated that you felt homosexuality was a mental disorder and I proved otherwise. So now that you can't call it a mental disorder, it's a fetish now? I wasn't trying to apply any psychological theory either, even moreso to a 'slim few'. The quote was explaining that the APA removed homosexual from their diagnostic manual. This applies to all homosexuals. Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment
No, a sexual trauma would not make you gay.

i am not talking about widespread bestiality. i am pointing out the concept of the few cases of bestiality where marriyng that animal is wrong. so is child man marraige or whatever else deviance out there that is illegal and scary and the product of serious damage. i am not linking homosexuality to bestiality. i am saying there are some things you shouldn't ****. or marry.

..I don't know how to respond to that.

Oliphaunt

11-10-2005, 03:43 AM

I'm being realistic. If I had no incling that a person was gay and then found out they where my opinion would naturally change. Not to say beign gay is anywher near as bad as this but if you found out your neighbor was a convicted felon many many years back would your opinion of them change? But would they not also remain the same person? I'm just beign realistic I'm not going to lie just to make my self look better.

I'm not saying everyday I see stuff about homosexuality but every so once awhile I do. As far as an observation I remember a few months back I was watching a show called 30 days of FX and on this episode it had a "straight laced god loving Texas republican" go live with a gay man in the Castro in San Francisco. Overall I felt it was a good program but I jsut kind of noticed that the way the program was presented the guy from Texas was the problem. I am not trying to say either side was right or wrong but I just feel it was kind of slanted like the gays in the programs where smarter and generally better people than the guy from Texas and that they really had little to learn compared to the guy from Texas. So that is how sometimes I feel the media promotes homosexuality. But then again I maybe misinterpreting.

Should homosexuals be forced to deny who they are? Should they be forced to keep such a large part of themselves secret as if ashamed of it? Is portraying homosexuality on TV promoting it? In what way should it be portrayed for you to see ti as not promoting homosexuality?

Nuke the Oil

11-10-2005, 06:27 AM

Also a couple other reasons why homosexuality isn't good is: can a homosexual couple naturally have a child? And if every person was gay wouldn't that cause human extinction? (when considering the latter believe that science wasn't advance enough to artifically impregnate a woman and everbody absolutly believed in fedelity) I know these are extreme case scenarios but its a couple of reason that I don't believe in homosexuality.

Oh, I can really nuke these arguments! They apply to abstinence! An abstinent couple can't naturally concieve children, and if everyone was abstinent then the human race would go extinct. Therefore I take it that you don't believe in abstinence, and abstinence shouldn't be encouraged? :D :devil:

RobinD69

11-13-2005, 12:36 AM

Oh, I can really nuke these arguments! They apply to abstinence! An abstinent couple can't naturally concieve children, and if everyone was abstinent then the human race would go extinct. Therefore I take it that you don't believe in abstinence, and abstinence shouldn't be encouraged? :D :devil:
Actually abstinance should be encouraged outside of marriage and marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Yes Homosexuality is morally wrong in more ways than I could ever hope to present,but that is mostly based on my religious beliefs.But to a certain extant,and this is just a short list that could pertain to other lifestyles,homosexuality promotes unclean lifestyles with a facade of cleanliness,promote fornication,self centeredness,self worship,the spread of disease,confusion of right and wrong,promotes porn and fetishes.
From a Biblical perspective,homosexuals should deny their sexual tendacies,as should pedofiles,rapists,and straight partners who arent married and not just because the Bible says so,but because there is far more at risk than a little self gratification through perversion.We are only on this world for the breifest of times compared to the context of eternity God is willing to share with His faithful.So denying certain tendacies for this short time and focusing those energies to doing Gods work will ensure eternity with Him.But if you fail and you will,you must repent and turn to the Lord and away from your sin.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 12:55 AM

Actually abstinance should be encouraged outside of marriage and marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Yes Homosexuality is morally wrong in more ways than I could ever hope to present,but that is mostly based on my religious beliefs.But to a certain extant,and this is just a short list that could pertain to other lifestyles,homosexuality promotes unclean lifestyles with a facade of cleanliness,promote fornication,self centeredness,self worship,the spread of disease,confusion of right and wrong,promotes porn and fetishes.
From a Biblical perspective,homosexuals should deny their sexual tendacies,as should pedofiles,rapists,and straight partners who arent married and not just because the Bible says so,but because there is far more at risk than a little self gratification through perversion.We are only on this world for the breifest of times compared to the context of eternity God is willing to share with His faithful.So denying certain tendacies for this short time and focusing those energies to doing Gods work will ensure eternity with Him.But if you fail and you will,you must repent and turn to the Lord and away from your sin.

The more I read of what you're writing, the more convinced I become that religion is opium!

The more I read of what you're writing, the more thankful I become that I finally rejected the intellectual suicide and moral degeneration that is Christianity!

Nuke the Oil

11-13-2005, 09:42 AM

Actually abstinance should be encouraged outside of marriage and marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Thanks for that. I am just pointing out the logical fallacy present in those two Christian arguments against homosexuality - they also apply to abstinence!

Yes Homosexuality is morally wrong in more ways than I could ever hope to present,but that is mostly based on my religious beliefs.But to a certain extant,and this is just a short list that could pertain to other lifestyles,homosexuality promotes unclean lifestyles with a facade of cleanliness,promote fornication,self centeredness,self worship,the spread of disease,confusion of right and wrong,promotes porn and fetishes.

Why would homosexuality promote self centredness, self worship, confusion of right and wrong and promote porn and fetishes any more than heterosexuality? "Unclean lifestyles" and "fornication" are completely based on religion and therefore unsuitable for rational debate. Wouldn't masturbation promote all of these things to a far greater extent than homosexuality? Where are all the good Christians taking stands against masturbation?

From a Biblical perspective,homosexuals should deny their sexual tendacies,as should pedofiles,rapists,and straight partners who arent married and not just because the Bible says so,but because there is far more at risk than a little self gratification through perversion.We are only on this world for the breifest of times compared to the context of eternity God is willing to share with His faithful.So denying certain tendacies for this short time and focusing those energies to doing Gods work will ensure eternity with Him.But if you fail and you will,you must repent and turn to the Lord and away from your sin.

Go ahead, mortgage your present for some vaguely promised return in a future hidden from your sight. I want to do things the right way because it is right, rather then some vague threat of a choice between eternal bliss and damnation. And why would anyone in their right mind want to wile away eternity with your God?

Tokyoman

11-13-2005, 12:03 PM

I tend to think of morally wrong things as actions which cause harm or distress to others or take advantage of innocents. These actions eg. murder, stealing, infidelity, tend to be viewed as morally wrong across a wide variety of cultures. Given that homosexuality does not cause harm or distress to others (except perhaps some who judge that it is wrong due to religious beliefs) and is between consenting adults I can't see how it can be viewed as morally wrong.

That the act of anal sex may be unsafe to the participants or unclean does not make it morally wrong anymore then swimming in a dirty river would be morally wrong.

That a minority of the world's people engage in sexual behaviour which does not lead to creating offspring does not make it morally wrong either, especially considering it hasn't affected population growth.

If taken out of the context of religion I think it would be difficult for anyone to give a valid reason why it is morally wrong.

Murder takes an innocent life and causes distress and grieving to the family. Stealing causes loss and distress to the owner. Infidelity causes distress, hurt and emotional hardship to the cheated partner. Then there are other acts which take advantage of people. How does homosexuality fit this pattern?

Nuke the Oil

11-13-2005, 12:14 PM

It doesn't. But it is written up as evil in a few old books that hold far too much sway over the minds of far too many people in this world.

eugene40

11-13-2005, 02:45 PM

[QUOTE]I'm being realistic. If I had no incling that a person was gay and then found out they where my opinion would naturally change. Not to say beign gay is anywher near as bad as this but if you found out your neighbor was a convicted felon many many years back would your opinion of them change? But would they not also remain the same person? I'm just beign realistic I'm not going to lie just to make my self look better.
It doesn't really surprise me, I run background checks on my neighbors. And it isn't reallly a just comparisson to a felon. I mean a felon could encompass any number of crimes from rape to murder to assault with a deadly weapon. Gay is just gay.

I'm not saying everyday I see stuff about homosexuality but every so once awhile I do. As far as an observation I remember a few months back I was watching a show called 30 days of FX and on this episode it had a "straight laced god loving Texas republican" go live with a gay man in the Castro in San Francisco. Overall I felt it was a good program but I jsut kind of noticed that the way the program was presented the guy from Texas was the problem.
The guy from texas is the problem. He had the prejudice, the stereotypes, and all of that. People like that with the ignorance and hate of homosexuals are a problem. They promote falsehoods and spread hate where there should be none. Because gay people are just people, who happen to be gay. He didn't see that.

I am not trying to say either side was right or wrong but I just feel it was kind of slanted like the gays in the programs where smarter and generally better people than the guy from Texas and that they really had little to learn compared to the guy from Texas.
Well of course it was,,, the program had the intention to change his mind about his prejudice so it would obviously have to be slanted to gays. Though I think that is an off term slanted. I would say there were just being themselves as he was. And showing what was wrong and part of the problem. Or was the problem gays, and he was ok in his disdain for them?

So that is how sometimes I feel the media promotes homosexuality. But then again I maybe misinterpreting.

Ok, but back to my previous question. Is it merely bringing it to the level that heterosexuality is promoted? Is it trying to give their side of life equal footing in the media? And how do you exactly promote homosexuality? It isn't like you can promote I don't know a car or a movie, that if you innondate people enough with it they will go buy the car or watch the movie,, It isn't going to make them curious about being gay and try it out and become gay themselves. Gay is gay, straight is straight.... Maybe it is trying to show those that are afraid of admitting they are gay (because of people like the guy from texas) that it is ok, and that they should be themselves. I just don't see it being "promoted" do I see homosexuakity in the media, yes ,,, but promoting it... i don't think so.

eugene40

11-13-2005, 02:48 PM

The more I read of what you're writing, the more convinced I become that religion is opium!

The more I read of what you're writing, the more thankful I become that I finally rejected the intellectual suicide and moral degeneration that is Christianity!

just to be funny......

Amen to that,,, sheesh :rolleyes:

RobinD69

11-13-2005, 03:41 PM

No matter what any of you say or how much you would like to disregaurd what Christianity promotes.5% of the population should not be promoted above the rest of the population because of their moral degredation that they want to be accepted as normal.Wheather you wish to agree with me or not,the truth of the Bible is much more important than any opinion pole or self serving indulgences.
The bot from texas wasnt the problem,even though they tried to make him feel he was.The problem is those who wish to reject the truth of the Bible for the lies of their own selfish wants.I saw the show in question,and the gays were more hate filled than the boy from texas was judged to be because they promoted an abomination to God and expected others to accept their abomination.
Go ahead and think you are intellectualy superior to those who are religious,God will allow it,but when the time comes to pay the piper you will be blaming those religious folk for not convincing you on your supposed level you have seemingly set yourself upon.
I shall pray for you as I have done and do for the gays.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 03:48 PM

Wheather you wish to agree with me or not,the truth of the Bible is much more important than any opinion pole or self serving indulgences.

eh, no. For those of us who don't believe in the Bible it is neighter truth nor important.

Go ahead and think you are intellectualy superior to those who are religious,God will allow it,but when the time comes to pay the piper you will be blaming those religious folk for not convincing you on your supposed level you have seemingly set yourself upon.
I shall pray for you as I have done and do for the gays.

Oh, that's just great! "Believe as I do, or you will be severly punished in eternity!"

Threats and fear, the way Christianity has kept it's grip over human minds for centuries. And yet another reason to reject it!

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 03:49 PM

5% of the population should not be promoted above the rest of the population

No, but they should be treated as equal with the rest of the population.

Art of War

11-13-2005, 03:50 PM

You are wrong.

The gender of the sexual partners does not increase or decrease the risk of transmitting STD's.

Actaully he was right....in a fashion. Anal sex carries a very high risk of transmitting the AIDs virus and other blood born pathogens, not to mention the whole bladder infection deal. That act formerly being a primarily a homosexual thing causes him to associate it with transfer of these diseases. Of course it is not true of being primarily a homosexual act anymore so its pretty much a moot point.

RobinD69

11-13-2005, 03:50 PM

No, but they should be treated as equal with the rest of the population.
Equal yes,special no.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 03:57 PM

Equal yes,special no.

You mean: Equal, but separate?

RobinD69

11-13-2005, 04:00 PM

You mean: Equal, but separate?
No I meant what I said,Equal not special.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 04:02 PM

No I meant what I said,Equal not special.

Sure you do! :rolleyes:

RobinD69

11-13-2005, 04:06 PM

Sure you do! :rolleyes:
beleave what you like,your loss. :D :angel: :sorry:

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 04:09 PM

beleave what you like,your loss. :D :angel: :sorry:

I suspect that our respective definition of the word equal differs. :rolleyes:

Jetsons

11-13-2005, 06:41 PM

Nuke the Oil

11-13-2005, 09:05 PM

sub_zer0

11-13-2005, 09:32 PM

Why does your God allow slavery?

Because the person with the slave is supposed to keep him as a servant and treat him out of love and respect.

Obviously people just can't do that.

Nuke the Oil

11-13-2005, 09:48 PM

Because the person with the slave is supposed to keep him as a servant and treat him out of love and respect.

Obviously people just can't do that.

Don't you think the creator of the universe would be aware of such an obvious fact? Why did God condone it anyway?

sub_zer0

11-13-2005, 11:21 PM

Don't you think the creator of the universe would be aware of such an obvious fact? Why did God condone it anyway?

He was giving everybody a chance... He gave everybody free will.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 11:36 PM

He was giving everybody a chance... He gave everybody free will.

eh, how much free will does a slave have exactly?

Duo_Maxwell

11-13-2005, 11:47 PM

How much free will can a slave have with they are suppose to be always obiedent to their masters as the bible clearly dictates?

There's no challenge here.

sub_zer0

11-13-2005, 11:49 PM

Slavery now-a-days should never have to happen. Back then it was a different time.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 11:51 PM

Slavery now-a-days should never have to happen. Back then it was a different time.

Back then it was ok, you mean?

sub_zer0

11-13-2005, 11:53 PM

It should be allowed ANYTIME back then if that owner treats the person with love and respect and if the person is doing it by his free will...

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 11:54 PM

It should be allowed ANYTIME back then if that owner treats the person with love and respect and if the person is doing it by his free will...

A slave is being a slave by his own free will?? :confused:

eugene40

11-13-2005, 11:54 PM

It should be allowed ANYTIME back then if that owner treats the person with love and respect and if the person is doing it by his free will...

Do you understand the meaning of the word SLAVE..... generally it has nothing to do with the words Free and will.

JD3

11-13-2005, 11:55 PM

No I meant what I said,Equal not special.

I don't even know what this means. What is so special about being able to marry the person you love? Having bereavement leave when your partner dies? Sharing a life committment in the open? Not being turned away from hotels and restruants and public places for holding hands or sharing a quick peck on the cheeks.

As I said, I don't know what you are talking about, but there is nothing special in the these rights. They are basic human rights.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 11:55 PM

It should be allowed ANYTIME back then if that owner treats the person with love and respect and if the person is doing it by his free will...

Or do you mean if the owner by his free will treats the slave with love and respect?

sub_zer0

11-13-2005, 11:55 PM

dude you guys asked my opinion that is what I am saying.... now im done with it.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 11:56 PM

dude you guys asked my opinion that is what I am saying.... now im done with it.

eh, no, you did not answer. Is slavery ok or is it not?

sub_zer0

11-13-2005, 11:57 PM

for petes sake... NO... read my post and see if that agrees with I just said.

Soc.Dem.

11-13-2005, 11:58 PM

for petes sake... NO... read my post and see if that agrees with I just said.

But God sactions it, so how can it be wrong?

Dangerrmouse

11-14-2005, 12:00 AM

Slavery was wrong back then too.

sub_zer0

11-14-2005, 12:01 AM

But God sactions it, so how can it be wrong?

He does, where?

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 12:07 AM

He does, where?

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Palestine and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861, "Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [St. Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

sub_zer0

11-14-2005, 12:10 AM

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Palestine and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861, "Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [St. Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave."

So taking that stance that the Bible has not stood against slavery. One would think that the Bible is in favor of slavery. Since the Bible is the word of God, God is in favor of slavery or slave-traders, correct so far?

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 12:13 AM

So taking that stance that the Bible has not stood against slavery. One would think that the Bible is in favor of slavery. Since the Bible is the word of God, God is in favor of slavery or slave-traders, correct so far?

It's not simply that the Bible does not take a stance against slavery.

In the OT God gives precise laws regulating slavery.

sub_zer0

11-14-2005, 12:17 AM

But it also does take a stance against it in

1 Timothy 1:10: for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

It is against slave traders...

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 12:26 AM

Dangerrmouse

11-14-2005, 12:33 AM

It's like letting the users go but chasing the pushers!

sub_zer0

11-14-2005, 12:39 AM

And it takes a stance for it:

Could that not be more controlling it than taking a stance for it?

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 12:41 AM

Could that not be more controlling it than taking a stance for it?

God gives the Israelites permission to buy slaves. That's certainly not a stance against slavery.

sub_zer0

11-14-2005, 12:58 AM

God gives the Israelites permission to buy slaves. That's certainly not a stance against slavery.

where does it say that?

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 01:01 AM

where does it say that?

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

What don't you understand about this?? :confused:

sub_zer0

11-14-2005, 01:49 AM

I was trying to find out where in the Bible it was, I understand everytthing you are saying, I just need to get more out of you.

Anyway, as far as Leviticus 25:44 goes, God commanded Israel to have slaves because of the idolatrous, heathenistic, rebellious practices.

The people becoming slaves is more of a judgement upon them to turn away from their rebellion or disobediance to God. To be fair on God this blatent disobediance, or departure from the written law of God, which was judged, lasted for 490 years.

Of course, if you keep reading in Leviticus 26:3-13 God once agains reaches out to the Israelites.

3: "If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
4: Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
5: And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.
6: And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.
7: And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8: And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
9: For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.
10: And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.
11: And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
12: And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
13: I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright."

You see the judgement was discipline on mankind because of their blatent disregard for the commandments of the Lord. Once the discipline is finished God or the Father reaches out to the Israelites or children and says this is how you are to act. If you act this way, all will be peaceful, and the Lord will bless you!

lawman

11-14-2005, 07:27 AM

Ahem. Even the Ten Commandments tacitly endorse slavery. The terms that in English traditionally appear as "manservant" and "maidservant" are more properly translated as "slave." (Not that this is the only ethical problem in the Decalogue, by any means, but it's the one that's directly pertinent here.)

To say that God endorsed slavery only in limited circumstances, or as a punishment, is disingenuous. It was a part of society that was accepted without question, and the Bible reflects that.

Nuke the Oil

11-14-2005, 10:04 AM

So again I ask why should we adhere to the Christian God's moral standards, obviously inferior as they are?

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 06:41 PM

Anyway, as far as Leviticus 25:44 goes, God commanded Israel to have slaves because of the idolatrous, heathenistic, rebellious practices.

The people becoming slaves is more of a judgement upon them to turn away from their rebellion or disobediance to God. To be fair on God this blatent disobediance, or departure from the written law of God, which was judged, lasted for 490 years.

Of course, if you keep reading in Leviticus 26:3-13 God once agains reaches out to the Israelites.

3: "If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
4: Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
5: And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.
6: And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.
7: And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8: And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
9: For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.
10: And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.
11: And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
12: And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
13: I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright."

You see the judgement was discipline on mankind because of their blatent disregard for the commandments of the Lord. Once the discipline is finished God or the Father reaches out to the Israelites or children and says this is how you are to act. If you act this way, all will be peaceful, and the Lord will bless you!

The verses of from Leviticus you are quoting here calls on the Israelites to be obedient to God's commandments, yes.

But nowhere in these verses does it say that slavery is the punishment for disobedience.

Your verses are not in the same context and chapters as the one I quoted.

And keep in mind that the 613 commandments of the Pentateuch were given specifically to the Israelites and binding upon them, not human kind as a whole.

Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly states that the Israelites are permitted to buy and keep slaves, as long as these slaves are not Israelites themselves.

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

sub_zer0

11-14-2005, 07:21 PM

But nowhere in these verses does it say that slavery is the punishment for disobedience.

True but that is how it is to be viewed.

Your verses are not in the same context and chapters as the one I quoted.

Yes I know. By the verses I quoted it is stating that if they turn away from their practices they will be blessed. You see?

And keep in mind that the 613 commandments of the Pentateuch were given specifically to the Israelites and binding upon them, not human kind as a whole.

Exactly so, slavery is not condoned by God, but for the Israelites because of the heathenistic practices of the nations around them.

Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly states that the Israelites are permitted to buy and keep slaves, as long as these slaves are not Israelites themselves.

Yes, I know. But it is to be viewed as judgment upon those people who are to become slaves because of their heathenistic practices.

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 07:33 PM

True but that is how it is to be viewed

Why?

You are reading something into the text which isn't there.

Yes I know. By the verses I quoted it is stating that if they turn away from their practices they will be blessed. You see?

Yes, the Israelites will be blessed if they keep God's commandments...and they are allowed to buy slaves.

Exactly so, slavery is not condoned by God, but for the Israelites because of the heathenistic practices of the nations around them..

If God permits slavery, how does he not condone it?

Yes, I know. But it is to be viewed as judgment upon those people who are to become slaves because of their heathenistic practices.

The people Europeans and Americans took from Africa were also "heathens", did that make it right to keep Africans as slaves?

heel31ok

11-14-2005, 10:20 PM

Soc.Dem.

11-14-2005, 10:47 PM

eugene40

11-15-2005, 02:27 AM

You obviously know nothing about the institution of slavery in the acient world.

:shrug:

It is amazing isn't?

Nuke the Oil

11-15-2005, 09:11 AM

the use of the word slave is like the use of the word employee. A slave would commit to work in exchange for food and shelter. Buying a slave was like buying the contract from another employer. Aso there were original love slaves.not what you think. They had completed there time yet did not want to leave and would voluntarily give their life to servanthood of their master .

Perhaps lowering the employee to slave status is the right wing dream, but slaves were not employees! In those days various nations would go on murderous rampages in other "inferior" nation and the would seize some of the survivors and put them into servitude. Of course many of these were sex slaves who were undoubtedly raped again and again and again. And the Christian God condones this base behaviour.

Void Image

11-15-2005, 02:29 PM

Actually abstinance should be encouraged outside of marriage and marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Yes Homosexuality is morally wrong in more ways than I could ever hope to present,but that is mostly based on my religious beliefs.But to a certain extant,and this is just a short list that could pertain to other lifestyles,homosexuality promotes unclean lifestyles with a facade of cleanliness,promote fornication,self centeredness,self worship,the spread of disease,confusion of right and wrong,promotes porn and fetishes.
From a Biblical perspective,homosexuals should deny their sexual tendacies,as should pedofiles,rapists,and straight partners who arent married and not just because the Bible says so,but because there is far more at risk than a little self gratification through perversion.We are only on this world for the breifest of times compared to the context of eternity God is willing to share with His faithful.So denying certain tendacies for this short time and focusing those energies to doing Gods work will ensure eternity with Him.But if you fail and you will,you must repent and turn to the Lord and away from your sin.

I figured a post like this one would show up. Thank you, RobinD69, for displaying all the hate, ignorance, and complete disregard for logic that fanatical christianity has to offer. I started this post to debate the morality of homosexuality, and all you've done here is preach. You make plenty of accusations, but where is your evidence? Self gratification through perversion? Promotes porn and fetishes? Self worship? What in the h*ll are you talking about?!

It is ideas like these that are destroying this country. THIS is why religion has no part in a democracy. Theocracies used to be very popular in Europe. We now call these times the Dark Ages. If you are against being gay or gay marriage because of your religion, read through this post and hopefully you will begin to realize the idiocy and hate your beliefs and old story books promote.

heel31ok

11-15-2005, 03:40 PM

Perhaps lowering the employee to slave status is the right wing dream, but slaves were not employees! In those days various nations would go on murderous rampages in other "inferior" nation and the would seize some of the survivors and put them into servitude. Of course many of these were sex slaves who were undoubtedly raped again and again and again. And the Christian God condones this base behaviour.
Study then speak. Stay on subject not bait and switch.Other nations was not the point I was speaking to.the right wing dream has nothing to do with it. if you work for someone you are in servitude . Right wing left wing, wing ding whatever. you transferrence of variuos nation to one nation is logiaclin your own mind but not supported by the facts.Get the facts then make a conclusion,not the other way around.

lawman

11-15-2005, 03:50 PM

Well, in a way, what RobinD69 offers is a concession... that there's no moral argument against homosexuality unless you insist on dragging religion into the discussion. For those of us who prefer our morals and ethics to be based on secular philosophy, thank you very much, talk of "sin" and "eternity" is not only irrelevant but frankly risible, and the question comes down to how to make the best life we can within the context of our "brief time" in this world. By those standards, most of the objections fade away into nothing.

(Caveat: I don't mean to suggest that anyone who's religious necessarily shares the skewed, narrow-minded worldview Robin expresses. I do think, however, that such attitudes are far more likely when religion is involved.)

heel31ok

11-15-2005, 04:05 PM

I figured a post like this one would show up. Thank you, RobinD69, for displaying all the hate, ignorance, and complete disregard for logic that fanatical christianity has to offer. I started this post to debate the morality of homosexuality, and all you've done here is preach. You make plenty of accusations, but where is your evidence? Self gratification through perversion? Promotes porn and fetishes? Self worship? What in the h*ll are you talking about?!

It is ideas like these that are destroying this country. THIS is why religion has no part in a democracy. Theocracies used to be very popular in Europe. We now call these times the Dark Ages. If you are against being gay or gay marriage because of your religion, read through this post and hopefully you will begin to realize the idiocy and hate your beliefs and old story books promote.
there was no hate or ignorance involved inthe post you commented on. Also great logic was used because it is logical if you believe the bible to have this view .Just because there is disagreement does not mean hate. But I do detect an attitude with you of waiting to jump on anyone not agreeing with you especially one who belives the Bible. That is the crux of this thread to attack believers.wait for them to appear then pounce. It is more hateful what you do and it is disgusting to use logic and debate as a smokescreen.

News flash einstein we do not live in a democracy. The Dark ages were a time when man was away from God.You ain't seen dark til God withdraws again.Then you can bask in the glow of your logic and godless society and be satisfied in your own conceit.You are what you accuse your opponents of being and that is why the accusations are so vehement.
The evidence you ask for is in the Bible and that is the basis of the posters position. You can disagree but cannot take away the basis for it is plain to see . The fact is not a alck of evidence it is your refusal to allow another person to make up their own mind for their own reasons and stick to it.That is what causes the dark ages and burning books and the like.

You rely ony our own self and mind to form a standard. That is self worship , self-centeredness.You trust in yourself . Self, self,self.

What is perversion? Using something in a way that it was not intended. square peg in a round hole,or square peg in a square peg.That is logic at the base level yet is overlooked by all these scholars of multi million proteins and polypetides.

I am glad a post like this showed up to shine a light on the real purpose and intent you have.

Morality is a subject wider than the grand canyon and this persons morality is what it is and cannot be judged according to your standards but to this persons own standards.

Void Image

11-15-2005, 04:46 PM

there was no hate or ignorance involved inthe post you commented on. Also great logic was used because it is logical if you believe the bible to have this view .Just because there is disagreement does not mean hate. But I do detect an attitude with you of waiting to jump on anyone not agreeing with you especially one who belives the Bible. That is the crux of this thread to attack believers.wait for them to appear then pounce. It is more hateful what you do and it is disgusting to use logic and debate as a smokescreen.

News flash einstein we do not live in a democracy. The Dark ages were a time when man was away from God.You ain't seen dark til God withdraws again.Then you can bask in the glow of your logic and godless society and be satisfied in your own conceit.You are what you accuse your opponents of being and that is why the accusations are so vehement.
The evidence you ask for is in the Bible and that is the basis of the posters position. You can disagree but cannot take away the basis for it is plain to see . The fact is not a alck of evidence it is your refusal to allow another person to make up their own mind for their own reasons and stick to it.That is what causes the dark ages and burning books and the like.

You rely ony our own self and mind to form a standard. That is self worship , self-centeredness.You trust in yourself . Self, self,self.

What is perversion? Using something in a way that it was not intended. square peg in a round hole,or square peg in a square peg.That is logic at the base level yet is overlooked by all these scholars of multi million proteins and polypetides.

I am glad a post like this showed up to shine a light on the real purpose and intent you have.

Morality is a subject wider than the grand canyon and this persons morality is what it is and cannot be judged according to your standards but to this persons own standards.

For one, I will admit I was a little angry while writing my previous post. I did not intend to insult anyone and I'm sorry if I went overboard. However, this doesn't change my argument in the least. The purpose of this thread was not to 'bully' anyone. I made it clear that it was a challenge, a challenge to anyone to come up with a valid reason as to why homosexuality was wrong. The bible, your personal beliefs, etc. are not valid reasons. I repeat, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE. If I told you eating carrots was wrong because of this book I base my life on, is this now a 'valid reason'? I was a little too specific when I mentioned the bible and asked to exclude it from the argument, but what I was really trying to say was leave religion out of this. Religion is a personal belief. A belief, not a reason, and religious beliefs should not be imposed on others.

I also maintain that there is no logic in the argument I originally responded to. There was no 'great logic'. Homosexuality does not lead to pornography or fetishes, at least, not any more than heterosexuality. It does not lead to self worship, at least, any more than heterosexuality. Perversion is not simply using something in a way other than it's intended useage. Even so, this doesn't make something wrong, as I made clear in the first post on this thread. There is no logic in this argument. I am not forming a standard. I am not imposing my beliefs on others. Do I rely on myself? Yes, I do. Do I worship myself? Certainly not. Do I trust in myself? OF COURSE. Notice that I did not call RobinD names. I did not judge the poster. I questioned the ideas to which he conforms, with reason, debate, and perhaps an unintentional bias against blind prejudice. You rely on personal attacks and claims of persecution.

You say I refuse to let others make up their own minds. I disagree. For instance, when it comes to two men who decide they love eachother and want to marry, I let them make up their own minds. If you want to believe in the bible, christianity, any belief really, I have no problems with that. I haven't attacked the basic ideas of religion here. I have questioned the harm these beliefs can cause others. It IS hate, whether you want to admit it or not. It IS ignorant, whether you want to believe it or not. Why is it ignorant? Because as this thread has shown, you cannot claim that homosexuality OR gay marriage is wrong without using the bible. THAT was the intent of this thread. Why is it hateful? Because you are imposing your beliefs on a group of people you do not know, do not associate with, and probably rarely come in contact with outside of some positive media coverage.

I agree that morality is a vague subject, and it's a personal thing. However, if that is the case, then you are arguing against your own beliefs on gay marriage, abortion, society, and anything else that involves 'good ol' fashioned christian values'. You are a hypocrite.

sub_zer0

11-15-2005, 04:59 PM

I don't need the Bible.

It demeans the normal man-woman relationship and it demeans marriage. It takes away the specialness of marriage. You know between a man and woman? It has been like that since the beginning no need to change for these perverts. There is no way Americans will let that go, I hope anyway. The gays just need to accept where they are right now, make themselves quit looking bad and realize that not all people will accept their perverse disgusting way of life. Especially accept it so much as to let them get married and gain the same benefits of normal Americans.

The Bible just backs me up on it.

::Major_Baker::

11-15-2005, 05:02 PM

I don't need the Bible.

It demeans the normal man-woman relationship and it demeans marriage. It takes away the specialness of marriage.

They just need to accept where they are at and that not all people will accept their perverse disgusting way of life.

The Bible just backs me up on it.
I think your way of life, prejudging people because of their PRIVATE sexual preferences, is the only thing disgusting and perverse here.
Oh and don't give me that "i don't need the bible" crap--all you talk about here is the bible. You are obsessed with it, and sometimes I wonder if you could produce an original thought without it.

sub_zer0

11-15-2005, 05:05 PM

I think your way of life, prejudging people because of their PRIVATE sexual preferences, is the only thing disgusting and perverse here.
Oh and don't give me that "i don't need the bible" crap--all you talk about here is the bible. You are obsessed with it, and sometimes I wonder if you could produce an original thought without it.

I just did. I am not prejudging gays. If you are gay you have sex with tthe same sex. To me that is a perversion and is disgusting. There is no gay gene never was never will be. They choose to be gay because thehy cannot get over their perversion of it. Don't prejudge me. I have friends who are gay, and I would tell them the same thing.

That is disgusting and not the way life is to be, which is why they can't get pregnant. If it is private then why are they so public about it, rainbows, triangles, NAMBLA, etc, etc? They are disgusting which is why it is rampant with AIDS they have sex in bathhouses and tthey are only interested in sex... not all but quite a few. And lets not forget they are the minority so it is not a NORMAL way of life.

sub_zer0

11-15-2005, 05:10 PM

But like I said I don't need the Bible to realize the perversness as homosexuality. Which is exactly what I did, it is my own opinion formed around todays society backed up by the Bible.

::Major_Baker::

11-15-2005, 05:10 PM

I don't have to, you just throw it all right out there for everyone to see.

I am really quite speechless right now.

sub_zer0

11-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Good, my point is proven.

::Major_Baker::

11-15-2005, 05:15 PM

Good, my point is proven.
Listen, You have yet to prove a point on this forum.
the only thing you have proven is that you are so blinded by your religion, that you hate your fellow human because of a lifestyle, instead of loving them as God commands.

and this is a load of ****:
Don't prejudge me. I have friends who are gay, and I would tell them the same thing.
You do not have friends that are gay.

Strel

11-15-2005, 05:17 PM

I don't need the Bible.

This is where your post should have ended.

It demeans the normal man-woman relationship and it demeans marriage. It takes away the specialness of marriage. You know between a man and woman?

How, exactly? Please do explain how homosexuals getting married would have any effect AT ALL on a heterosexual marriage.

It has been like that since the beginning no need to change for these perverts.

And homosexuals have been around that long too. Time was, it used to be perfectly acceptable in some societies, and the relationships could even be formalized. Now that we live in a democracy not dominated by religious nutbatgs (or did until 2000), we can do the same. I still haven't heard a legal basis for outlawing gay marriage. This battle is going to be fought in the courts, and sooner or later you are going to have to come up with a non-religious reason to keep gays from having the same rights as you and I.

Got one?

There is no way Americans will let that go, I hope anyway.

I am an American too, and so are my gay friends that would very much like to get married. Get used to it.

The gays just need to accept where they are right now, make themselves quit looking bad and realize that not all people will accept their perverse disgusting way of life. Especially accept it so much as to let them get married and gain the same benefits of normal Americans.

The Bible just backs me up on it.

So you aren't a big fan of the Constitution of the United States then? I think you would feel much more at home in Iran, where they just kill gays outright. I won't assume you are OK with that, but really, your kind of fundamentalist bigotry has no place in an egalitarian society.

sub_zer0

11-15-2005, 06:58 PM

How, exactly? Please do explain how homosexuals getting married would have any effect AT ALL on a heterosexual marriage.

OK, like I said. It makes the sacredness of marriage, the whole idea of a man and a woman getting married, go away. Why? Because if gays, a man and a man or a woman and a woman get married and get the same treatment as straight marriages, the very idea and sacredness of marriage is done for.

That is exactly how it will effect EVERY SINGLE heterosexual marriage. It is no longer for straight "normal" marriages, so its like what is the point or the sacredness of marriage for to begin with.

And homosexuals have been around that long too. Time was, it used to be perfectly acceptable in some societies, and the relationships could even be formalized. Now that we live in a democracy not dominated by religious nutbatgs (or did until 2000), we can do the same. I still haven't heard a legal basis for outlawing gay marriage. This battle is going to be fought in the courts, and sooner or later you are going to have to come up with a non-religious reason to keep gays from having the same rights as you and I.

Got one?

I have not even given you one thing quoted from the Bible or anything religious for that matter. I am giving you my opinion.

I am an American too, and so are my gay friends that would very much like to get married. Get used to it.

Can't they be happy with a civil union?

So you aren't a big fan of the Constitution of the United States then? I think you would feel much more at home in Iran, where they just kill gays outright. I won't assume you are OK with that, but really, your kind of fundamentalist bigotry has no place in an egalitarian society.

The constitution? Killing gays outright? What the? Dude, come on...

The Federal Marriage Amendment reads as follows:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the Constitution of any state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof shall be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.”

That is what the constitution should be ammended to!

Russikan

11-15-2005, 07:16 PM

OK, like I said. It makes the sacredness of marriage, the whole idea of a man and a woman getting married, go away. Why? Because if gays, a man and a man or a woman and a woman get married and get the same treatment as straight marriages, the very idea and sacredness of marriage is done for.

That is exactly how it will effect EVERY SINGLE heterosexual marriage. It is no longer for straight "normal" marriages, so its like what is the point or the sacredness of marriage for to begin with.

And why on earth are "normal" marriages special? Marriage has never seemed very special to me. I always thought that the reason I got married was A) to show my wofe that I loved her, and B) to make more certain that we would not be seperated by administative shuffling and that if either of us could get out of Russia we both could.

I don't find either of these very offensive to give to gays. But then again, I'm not a bigot.

JoeR

11-15-2005, 07:34 PM

Can't they be happy with a civil union?

Does the phrase seperate but equal mean anything to you?

Besides which, most of the propositions in the states ban civil unions too.

Soc.Dem.

11-15-2005, 09:07 PM

There is no gay gene never was never will be.

Yeah, and we all that you have so much credibility when it comes to science! :rolleyes: :lol: :laughter:

I have friends who are gay

Sure you do! :rolleyes: :lol:

That is disgusting and not the way life is to be, which is why they can't get pregnant.

I guess that makes it wrong for heterosexuals who are infertile for some reason or another, for example having passed the menopause, to have sex also.

If it is private then why are they so public about it, rainbows, triangles, NAMBLA, etc, etc? They are disgusting which is why it is rampant with AIDS they have sex in bathhouses and tthey are only interested in sex... not all but quite a few.

Yeah, and no heterosexuals have casual sex or are pedophiles... :rolleyes:

I guess you're not aware that most people infected with HIV/AIDS are heterosexual?

And lets not forget they are the minority so it is not a NORMAL way of life.

In you country, Blacks are a minority as well, does that make them abnormal?

In my country, Evangelical Christians are a minority, does that make them abnormal?