Politically Incorrect: Gay Marriage [Archive]

Bond

08-04-2003, 04:13 PM

Dylflon

08-04-2003, 04:18 PM

I don't get what the big deal is.

Why does everyone get into a big huff over gay marriage? Gay people aren't any different from straight people aside from the fact that they like members of the same sex. Big freaking deal.

Why was it illegal for gay people to get married or have sex in the first place? That doesn't make any freaking sense.

Kitana85

08-04-2003, 04:28 PM

CNN, the Today Show, and The New York Times have all had HUGE stories regarding the descision of the Epsicopal Church to approve the consecration of The Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, a task that should not have taken more than 10 minutes. This debate came about now, as the church is in the midst of its triennial general convention.
I am currently here, at convention, as a deputy, in the midst of the turmoil. Many people who protested Canon Robinson's consecration did so because, he is in a gay long-term partnered relationship.
He has a strong faith, and was clearly called by God for this ministry, however, many felt that because he is not "married," he must remain celebate... an inconcienvable request, as all men need sex with one they are attracted to.

If Canon Robinson, a wonderful man with whom many I know are aquainted had to go through that much horror to follow what God called him for, because there is no place for his love in marrige, something must be done.

The diocese of Westminister in Canada recently approved the union of same sex couples, to the dismay of much of the Anglican Communion.

Though I support same sex union whole-heartedly, I would not call them marriges, as a marrige is between a man and a woman.

A resolution will come to the floor of the house of deputies tommorrow.

As I've been typing this in the exhibition hall, a sexual misconduct suit has been brougt up against canon robinson, so you can see how many people are agaist this.

The Germanator

08-04-2003, 04:38 PM

I'm all for gay marriage. I never understood why other people really cared if gay people married. I mean, they are just two people who love eachother and want to make that sacred bond, just like a heterosexual couple. I'm not a religious person, and I suppose that's part of the issue, but I still don't see why people should worry about other people they don't even know getting married...just seems a bit silly to me.

Bond

08-04-2003, 04:41 PM

Marriage is defined as, "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife," but that's just the only definition we know. Words can always be altered.

And on another note. Who is the Catholic Church to comment on gay marriages while they have thousands of sexual abuse cases on their hands, which they have not dealt with?

gekko

08-04-2003, 05:12 PM

Bond, no institution is perfect :p There's no reason they shouldn't try to protect their beliefs, even though there are a few bad apples.

Jason1

08-04-2003, 05:22 PM

Im Catholic... :devil:

gekko

08-04-2003, 05:27 PM

there are a few bad apples.

Im Catholic... :devil:

:hm:

Coincedence?

Vampyr

08-04-2003, 05:31 PM

I dont see anything wrong with gay marriage. If they want to be gay and get married to someone of the same sex, go ahead and let them.

And if its the deffinition of the word "marriage" that makes people not want to legalize it, than call it something else but give them the same rights and benefits.

Kitana85

08-04-2003, 06:01 PM

Sighs I wish the 50+ year old peeps agree with you guys

Professor S

08-04-2003, 06:55 PM

The fact that this is even a hot topic is rediculous. What are we arguing over? We'rte arguing over whether 2 people can get married. How this affects anyone else but the people in question, I have no idea.

The biggest arguement against gay marriage, besides "***s are the DEVIL", is "Marriage is a very specific thing. Its between a man and a woman." To me this is a thin veil of homophobic bigotry. The reason why poeple are against gay marriage is because it would be like saying that being gay is acceptable. It is inclusionary, instead of exclusionary. Keeping gay marriage illegal is just another way of keeping homosexuality a taboo.

To me, marriage is about 2 people that love one another devoting their lives to each other. Now we heterosexuals seem to only be able to make this work 40% of the time. Maybe we should let homosexuals have a crack at it.

The bible is the main case against gay marriage, but then again aren't we supposed to be a secular society? The very fact that our law follows the tenants of the bible in this is non-constitutional. Aren't all men created equal? If so, then gay marriage should be legal. If one person has a right, all should have them as well.

As for the Catholic church, I stopped listening to them after the whole pereverted priest controversy. So the Catholic church is against gay marriage between 2 loving and LEGAL individuals, but yet forced homosexual pedophilia which will scar thousands for the rest of their lives is A-OK. For the record, I have nothing against Catholicism as a religion, but the organization of the Catholic church is corrupt and should be disintegrated.

Joeiss

08-04-2003, 11:21 PM

In Canada it is allready legal, so I don't see what the big deal is.

;)

GiMpY-wAnNaBe

08-05-2003, 01:37 AM

In Canada it is allready legal, so I don't see what the big deal is.

;)
exactly, and marijuana is next on the list :D, right now its decriminalized and soon to be legaized, tee hee, once its legalized, where do you think all the amercians are gonna go for cottage trips? :D:D:D:D

TheGame

08-05-2003, 07:27 AM

lol... I don't even want to bother argueing. but...

All I know is, if it's leagalized it shouldn't be manditory for any pastor/preist to marry a couple that they don't want to. In other words, let the people who don't support it not support it, and only let the people who support it support it.

Am I against it? HELL yes... Do I want to make my case? HELL no. (;))

It would just turn into an arguement that will lead nowhere.. somthing about religion, morals, where this country came from and where it's going... I've been through this crap one too many times here, and for the sake of keeping peace, I don't want to take it there again.

Joeiss

08-05-2003, 11:07 AM

exactly, and marijuana is next on the list :D, right now its decriminalized and soon to be legaized, tee hee, once its legalized, where do you think all the amercians are gonna go for cottage trips? :D:D:D:D

We will probably decriminalize it... But not legalize it. If we did, then we would be kicked out of the UN!

Dylflon

08-05-2003, 07:03 PM

We're not arguing about gay marriage. We're discussing it. And marijuana won't be legalized. They just won't arrest you for having it.

kevin

08-05-2003, 07:17 PM

Stonecutter

08-05-2003, 08:19 PM

I highly doubt that the United Nations would expel Canada for legalizing marijuana. And if you do, I'd like some of what you're smoking! :p

The main reason that I doubt that Canada would be expelled from the UN for legalising marijuana is because Iraq hasn't even been expelled. Nope, not after the Gulf War, and after Saddam allegedly poisoned and gassed his citizens.

Homosexual marriage is the next logical step forward for a country that prides itself on being the 'land of the free'... Why not make yourselves free-minded as well?

In my opinion a previous poster was correct when he said that a priest should not be compelled to marry anyone that he/she felt should not be married - Canada's own proposed legislation allows for that and respects religious ideals.
Don't be a stranger dude.

-----------------------------------------------

As for my stance. I'm catholic and after what the church said about gays the other day, I'm never going to participate in mass again.

Now, I haven't been for awhile, but **** these assholes.

Gays = Wrong
Gay Priests = ehhh....errr....

WTF kind of stance is that.

Joeiss

08-06-2003, 12:54 AM

I highly doubt that the United Nations would expel Canada for legalizing marijuana. And if you do, I'd like some of what you're smoking! :p

I remember reading in the paper something about UN's rule about no legalizing certain drugs... And marijuana was on it... yep...

GiMpY-wAnNaBe

08-06-2003, 01:48 AM

find me that article....:P

Xantar

08-06-2003, 02:13 AM

Am I against it? HELL yes... Do I want to make my case? HELL no. (;))

It would just turn into an arguement that will lead nowhere.. somthing about religion, morals, where this country came from and where it's going... I've been through this crap one too many times here, and for the sake of keeping peace, I don't want to take it there again.

I hope it's not that stupid argument where gay marriage is somehow equated to sodomy and incest. And yes, I just called that argument stupid. The counter-argument to that one is so obvious and straightforward that I won't bother to lay it out.

Sighs I wish the 50+ year old peeps agree with you guys

Well, if the majority of us young people aren't against homosexual marriage, then there's hope yet. All we have to do is wait for all those 50+ year old peeps to die off and then the world would change.

Yeah, it's a slow process, but democracy is like that.

TheGame

08-06-2003, 03:07 AM

Vampyr

08-06-2003, 08:00 AM

a sin is a sin is a sin... period.

Also, thanks for calling my arguement stupid... I mean, you completly know how a gay person's mind works, right? Plus you know how incest people think too right? It's completly different right? Can't argue with that...

honestly, I don't give a damn what you think.

I'd accept a brother being married to is sister before I'd accept any type of gay union. In the end, they are just hurting themselves. Just one more step in the wrong direction.

But anyway... the way I see it, a sin is a sin, is a sin. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Most people can tell the difference, some can't. I think Gay people can't.

This is just what I believe, you can question it all you want, but you can't change it.

What, no shades of gray? If wrong is wrong, as you say, and right is right, then why would you except a brother marrying his sister before you would a guy marrying another guy? They are both wrong, according to the christain religon. A sin is a sin, is a sin, right? You can preach to them all you want, you have that right. Its one of the goals of Christains, to convert the entire world. But in the end, the choice is theirs.

You mentioned that they are just hurting themselves, and that they cant tell the difference between right and wrong. They're gay, not stupid. If they dont see anything wrong with being gay, then fine. If they are condeming themselves to Hell or whatever, than thats their choice too.

I realize I cant change your mind, but this is just what I believe, you can question it all you want, but you can't change it.

Professor S

08-06-2003, 08:20 AM

"I hope it's not that stupid argument where gay marriage is somehow equated to sodomy and incest. And yes, I just called that argument stupid. The counter-argument to that one is so obvious and straightforward that I won't bother to lay it out."
-Mr. X-

a sin is a sin is a sin... period.

Also, thanks for calling my arguement stupid... I mean, you completly know how a gay person's mind works, right? Plus you know how incest people think too right? It's completly different right? Can't argue with that... ;)

honestly, I don't give a damn what you think.

I'd accept a brother being married to is sister before I'd accept any type of gay union. In the end, they are just hurting themselves. Just one more step in the wrong direction.

But anyway... the way I see it, a sin is a sin, is a sin. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Most people can tell the difference, some can't. I think Gay people can't.

This is just what I believe, you can question it all you want, but you can't change it.

Lets disect this argument for a moment:

1) We live in a secular society, not a religious one. Your religious ideals of "sin" based on the bible have nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal under out constitution.

2) Ok, how does being gay equate to incest? And lets try to not make too much of a stretch here when you attempt to explain.

3) You ask us if we know whats going on in a gay person's mind. Well, do you? Didn't think so. In fact most modern evidence suggests that gay people are born that way. Wait a second... aren't all men created in God's image???? GOD'S A BI-SEXUAL!!!!! Mind blowing...

Also, if you are going to attempt to back up the legal aspects of why gay marriage should be banned, lets keep religion out of it, as it has no place in our government. I'm interested in your non-religious arguments.

As for religious arguments, if all men are made with free will according to the bible, why should we make gay marriage illegal considering it doesn't HURT ANYONE? Isn't it up to God to make that judgement when they die? I also remember something about "judging" in the bible too, and how we humans shouldn't do it.

Bond

08-06-2003, 08:31 AM

Jonbo298

08-06-2003, 09:15 AM

I finally gave it enough posts to get a general idea of what gt'ers think.

I for one am not against gay marriages. If 2 men or 2 women want to marry, let them! But we live in a society where morals/religion is taken into affect waaay too much. I'm not saying we shouldn't base everything around religion and morals, because there are some scenarios where it just is too wrong. But if 2 men or 2 women want to get married, its their choice, not the govt's choice.

*On Bonds Last Question*
Attendance might go down. There will be people out there who will probably send death threats, hate mail, or nasty phone calls to the (I dont want to start a stereotype, but I dont remember his name) "gay bishop". I hope whomever does attempt it (and you know it will happen), gets prosecuted to the fullest extent because he/she will deserve it.

gekko

08-06-2003, 12:02 PM

I'd accept a brother being married to is sister before I'd accept any type of gay union.

Which the US does allow if one of the siblings is adopted.

GiMpY-wAnNaBe

08-06-2003, 12:21 PM

Kitana85

08-06-2003, 12:31 PM

TheGame

08-06-2003, 12:46 PM

Well, lets separate this.

I was talking about legalizing gay marriage. Justin's only case right now is a religious one, which would obviously not hold up.

If we are talking about accepting gays into the Christian or whichever Church then he does have a religious argument.

Like I said in my first post, let them get married, but don't make it manditoy or and church or pastor to marry them. :p

Although both of his arguments are wrong because he turned down by McNair/Favre trade. :)

lol, now honestly, you expect me to trade my first pick for just McNair? :D

As for everybody else's posts, I didn't read past a couple of lines :p

I will read and reply in another post

TheGame

08-06-2003, 01:07 PM

What, no shades of gray? If wrong is wrong, as you say, and right is right, then why would you except a brother marrying his sister before you would a guy marrying another guy? They are both wrong, according to the christain religon. A sin is a sin, is a sin, right? You can preach to them all you want, you have that right. Its one of the goals of Christains, to convert the entire world. But in the end, the choice is theirs.

lol... have pretty much read the whole Bible... and I can't quite remember it saying brother/sister relationships are wrong. (Maybe just don't remember?)

You mentioned that they are just hurting themselves, and that they cant tell the difference between right and wrong. They're gay, not stupid. If they dont see anything wrong with being gay, then fine. If they are condeming themselves to Hell or whatever, than thats their choice too.

I never said that it isn't thier choice and I didn't call them stupid. Some don't see anything wrong with stealing, killing, or commiting adultry... hell, some don't find anything wrong with letting a goat give them oral sex. I mean NOTHING wrong with it, if the law protects it or not.

Just because one can't tell the difference beween right and wrong it doesn't mean they are right. If one acted on all thier fleshly desires because in thier mind it's right, it doesn't mean it's right. right?

Now, being gay doesn't hurt anybody else, that's why I think people find it acceptable... like I said before, they are only hurting themselves.

I realize I cant change your mind, but this is just what I believe, you can question it all you want, but you can't change it.

lol, nice :)

Joeiss

08-06-2003, 01:14 PM

By the way, does anyone see Church attendance going way down in the near future?

Nope. Most of the Christians that I know either a) support gay marriage or b) just don't give a damn.

Going to Church is to learn about Jesus and what he did. We also learn how to apply his teachings to our everyday life. He taught us not to discriminate against anyone, so I will not discriminate against homosexual people. It's that simple.

Bond

08-06-2003, 01:20 PM

Justin, the bottom line is that you have a religious, but not a political argument. All you need for a religious argument is your faith, for a political argument you actually need some factual points. The only political argument I could think of against gay marriage is that you could turn it into a society issue... but that still shouldn't work.

TheGame

08-06-2003, 01:21 PM

how can you accept siblings getting married before gays??? if siblings get married and they have children odds are their gonna have eleven toes, or some other genetic mutation. What happens when two gay ppl get married? nothing! their just with the person they want to be with, nothing more, that and they get the benefits from the government for being married, who does that hurt??? how does that affect YOU???

lol, some would use your arguement against you, I mean, if gay people can't have kids what purpose do they serve? I dunno about you, but I would rather Adam and Eve be brother and sister than be gay and not want to have anything to do with each-other. Thus the reason I would accept any

It doesn't effect me now... and I hope it never does. That is all I can say as far as a personal reply.

Bond

08-06-2003, 01:23 PM

if gay people can't have kids what purpose do they serve?
Wow, that's actually a good point. But this fact still remains which we've said before: God created all humans in his likeness. I believe it is quite obvious that gay people are born gay. That would mean that God created gay people in his likeness. Care to justifiy that one? :)

TheGame

08-06-2003, 01:27 PM

Justin, the bottom line is that you have a religious, but not a political argument. All you need for a religious argument is your faith, for a political argument you actually need some factual points.

exactly, thus the reason it's pointles to argue, wht I see as fact and what sombody else sees as fact could be two completly different things that can't be proven either way.

The only thing I agree on with people in this thread is that gay people don't hurt anybody else physically.

TheGame

08-06-2003, 01:40 PM

Wow, that's actually a good point. But this fact still remains which we've said before: God created all humans in his likeness. I believe it is quite obvious that gay people are born gay. That would mean that God created gay people in his likeness. Care to justifiy that one? :)

-Good, take it to the relgious side ;)-

Ok, according to the bible, all men are born sinners. That is the simple explination. The best man can do is try not to sin, and ask for forgiveness... no matter how strong the urge is. Nobody is born with a sexual drive, so babies aren't 'gay' or 'straight' they haven't and can't make that decisision yet.

As far as creation in god's likeness, that was refering to us having free will and the ability to reason not how we act on our free will and reasoning.

Professor S

08-06-2003, 01:46 PM

Game, say the tables are turned. Say being gay is the norm both socially and religiously. But you're born heterosexual and have absolutely no attraction to other men and even find it disgusting. So, knowing this, you would never EVER take a woman as your wife or see one romantically? You would never have sex with a woman or have act on your erotic thoughts?

TheGame

08-06-2003, 02:11 PM

Lets disect this argument for a moment:

1) We live in a secular society, not a religious one. Your religious ideals of "sin" based on the bible have nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal under out constitution.

2) Ok, how does being gay equate to incest? And lets try to not make too much of a stretch here when you attempt to explain.

3) You ask us if we know whats going on in a gay person's mind. Well, do you? Didn't think so. In fact most modern evidence suggests that gay people are born that way. Wait a second... aren't all men created in God's image???? GOD'S A BI-SEXUAL!!!!! Mind blowing...

Also, if you are going to attempt to back up the legal aspects of why gay marriage should be banned, lets keep religion out of it, as it has no place in our government. I'm interested in your non-religious arguments.

As for religious arguments, if all men are made with free will according to the bible, why should we make gay marriage illegal considering it doesn't HURT ANYONE? Isn't it up to God to make that judgement when they die? I also remember something about "judging" in the bible too, and how we humans shouldn't do it.

lol... read my other arguements for 'religios' answers.

As for non-religious reasons to make it illegal, I have nothing against it... my whole bias is based religion. I have hinted at it many times in this thread, but I would like to make it clear.

Game, say the tables are turned. Say being gay is the norm both socially and religiously. But you're born heterosexual and have absolutely no attraction to other men and even find it disgusting. So, knowing this, you would never EVER take a woman as your wife or see one romantically? You would never have sex with a woman or have act on your erotic thoughts?

lol... of course I would still be who I am... But this is a 'what if' question that holds no water in a arguement. If the only way to have babies remained the same, I would use that as my arguement to jutify my actions as more than just a sexual desire.

A better question would have been: what if I woke up tomorrow morning and I was a girl. Keeping all my same thoughs about women. In that case I would have to chose between my faith and my fleshly desire.... and that would be a ****ed up situation...

What I would do is simply never be married, and pray about it... if I had to chose between going to hell and having sex with women, I would never touch a girl again, and just never be attracted to a guy.

-EDIT- had to make this more clear

I would not have any sexual relationship of any type with anybody.

TheGame

08-06-2003, 02:40 PM

If gay's could get married, they wouldn't be having sex out of marriage... besides, who would want to be gay.. I mean, people don't tend to go out of their way to get persecuted... what ever...

I just think they should be able to get the same medical benefits as straight people... it comes down to this

If two gay men have been together for as many as 25 years, as one is dying, the other WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT HIS LIFE-PARTNER'S BEDSIDE AS HE DIED. He would have no claim to any of his partners belonings, and if the house was in his partners name, he would have no claim to that.

The dignity of both are taken away and their is no recourse... they can't even be with their partner as they die, as a husband of wife could be.

It's funny that you say that, because I have gay uncle who has been in a relationship for about 5 years and his partner died and he didn't get crap. Does it suck? Yes. I'm not that heartless that I would say this is not a terrible thing. But still, being gay is a sin, period. If I had to chose between supporting the gay community or not supporting it, I would chose not to support it.

the only thing I would protect them aganst is any form of physical violence. I support the right to live, but in no way shape or form support sin.

Professor S

08-06-2003, 03:16 PM

I would not have any sexual relationship of any type with anybody.

So you never plan on having sex with anyone ever?

BTW, but "lol" in front of your posts does not validate your opinions nor invalidate those who disagree with you. It comes off more as a nervous defense mechanism.

gekko

08-06-2003, 04:17 PM

if gay people can't have kids what purpose do they serve?

They can adopt kids, it's not like we don't have plenty out there who need families.

And if you really want to go along the lines that humans need to reproduce to exist, they can reproduce as well as straight. If there are only 4 people left, 2 male, 2 female, and they're all gay, they may feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, but they can still have sex and reproduce. The gay men could help the lesbian couple have kids. Just need to learn to cooperate with one another.

One Winged Angel

08-06-2003, 04:21 PM

Politically Incorrect: Should the United States legalize Gay Marriage?

Well, this is quite a serious issue our society is faced with. As you know the Bible says gay marriage is wrong. But we'll get to that later. First lets look at why people would want to legalize gay marriage. When you get married you get married through the church and you become legally married. Currently gays are only allowed to get married through some churches and are not able to get married through the courts. Now you wouldn't think this should be such a big issue, but it is. When you become legally married you receive a lot of benefits - such as more money back on tax cuts. As you can see this pisses off a lot of gay couples because they are not legally recognized as a being married and don't get the great benefits.

Now, people have been known to be gay as far back as we can tell, it was just never such a large issue. Scientists are also fairly certained you are either born homosexual or hetrosexual. I mean, who would actually want to be gay? You may wonder why people do not approve of gay couples. It's mainly because the Bible says that gay marriage is a bad thing. But lets remember that the Bible is a book that is over 2,000 years old and has been edited countless times. And if gay marriage was such a bad thing why didn't Jesus ever talk about it? Jesus stressed treating everyone fairly and giving people justice. And if God made all humans, obviously he made some of them gay. But then why would the Bible say it is a bad thing?

Personally I think we should legalize gay marriage. But I'm interested in hearing your opinions. I want to try to make this as an intelligent discussion as possible. So whether or not you agree with someone, you have to respect their opinion. Open the floodgates.

Everyone here woulld most likely think that I would be the last person to be against gay marriages, but surprisingly I am. The Bible is against gay marriage, and I can understand that. We should not force churches into doing something that is clearly against their policy as a devoted believer.

Now, people have been known to be gay as far back as we can tell, it was just never such a large issue. Scientists are also fairly certained you are either born homosexual or hetrosexual. I mean, who would actually want to be gay?

That is true, but there are guys who want to be gay. Those are the flaming homos that walk around with tight shirts on. It's not all genetic that people are gay. It can easily be from their childhood or hobbies. I bet 50% of all homosexuals could be straight if they wanted to.

It's mainly because the Bible says that gay marriage is a bad thing. But lets remember that the Bible is a book that is over 2,000 years old and has been edited countless times. And if gay marriage was such a bad thing why didn't Jesus ever talk about it?

Jesus really never talked about it because by the time he was around homosexuals realy weren't much of an issue then.

The bible has been edited, yes. I dont think it's been edited to an extent that people have added whatever they thought was bad. The bible is the word of god, not the word of other opinions.

Jesus stressed treating everyone fairly and giving people justice. And if God made all humans, obviously he made some of them gay. But then why would the Bible say it is a bad thing?

Again, god didn't make them gay. Science really can't prove that homosexuality is genetic. It is a decision men and women make. Even if it is in your genes, you can stil be straight. Jesus wanted everyone treated evenly if they folow the word of god.

I'm not saying no against gay marriages in general, just throughtout the church.

Professor S

08-06-2003, 05:02 PM

That is true, but there are guys who want to be gay. Those are the flaming homos that walk around with tight shirts on. It's not all genetic that people are gay. It can easily be from their childhood or hobbies. I bet 50% of all homosexuals could be straight if they wanted to.

And you are basing this on what? Also, the "flaming homos" comment is pulling a LOT of steam out of your argument. I have a friend who is gay, and he didn't start out as a "flaming homo", but he eventually became one through hanging out with gay people after he caame out of the closet. I think this is a result of feeling repressed for 20 some odd years and feeling like something was wrong with him, rather than he just wants to be gay. Considering the amount of prejudice that homosexuals face in America, I don't think anyone would pick that if they had a choice.

Jesus really never talked about it because by the time he was around homosexuals realy weren't much of an issue then.

Um, NO. Homosexuals were around a LONG time before Jesus. There are many accounts of gay bath houses in Rome and many other cultures before the birth of Christ. Christ hung out with 12 guys... what does that tell you? (Ok, that was a REALLY bad joke)

The bible has been edited, yes. I dont think it's been edited to an extent that people have added whatever they thought was bad. The bible is the word of god, not the word of other opinions.

Thats your religious opinion, not necessarily true. Plus there are even holes in your argument. The Bible has been translated and retranslated numerous times. These were all done by man. If man if inherently fallable, whats to say there weren't mistakes. Maybe God loves Homos and we straight guys are going to burn in hell.

Again, god didn't make them gay. Science really can't prove that homosexuality is genetic. It is a decision men and women make. Even if it is in your genes, you can stil be straight. Jesus wanted everyone treated evenly if they folow the word of god.

Science can't PROVE that gay men are born straight. Can you PROVE that being gay is just a choice or that God didn't make them that way? I even challenge to to find the part of the Bible that states that God didn't make people gay. Also, if Jesus (who is an extension of God) wanted to treat everyone evenly to follow the word of God, then why are some peope gay, and most aren't? It doesn't sound like they are being treated evenly to me.

I'm not saying no against gay marriages in general, just throughtout the church.

I think each church should be allowed to make their own decision on that, except the Catholic church because their own stance in hippocritical considering the actively harbor perverted homosexual priests. At least most gay people aren't predators, unlike those that the Catholic Church protects.

But churches are independent bodies separate from the government, so they are free to chose whatever they like. The question is whether or not the government should get involved, which they have no right to.

Why the government has not gotten involved in whole pedophile priest ordeal, I have no idea. Last time I heard an adult sexually forcing themselves on a minor was against the law.

TheGame

08-07-2003, 03:22 AM

So you never plan on having sex with anyone ever?

If I were gay I wouldn't... I don't plan on doing any sins, because in a way, that's commiting a sin in itself. If I were planning to ave sex with a girl (if I were a girl) I might as well be planning on robbing a bank and killing sombody... Either way I'm hurting myself, and I would pay for it.

They can adopt kids, it's not like we don't have plenty out there who need families.

And if you really want to go along the lines that humans need to reproduce to exist, they can reproduce as well as straight. If there are only 4 people left, 2 male, 2 female, and they're all gay, they may feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, but they can still have sex and reproduce. The gay men could help the lesbian couple have kids. Just need to learn to cooperate with one another.

they could... but I have heard that it's extremely hard for a virgin woman to go through child birth. I don't want to go through the details. just hope thre of those people are doctors.

-EDIT-

One Winged Angel has a bit more 'personal' experience in this subject than you or me.... To be honest, I am shocked that he didn't take your side full on.

GameMaster

08-07-2003, 03:46 AM

Live and let live.

Professor S

08-07-2003, 12:29 PM

If I were gay I wouldn't...

Thats very easy to say when your looking from the outside in. Try walking a mile in another man's shoes before condemning them.

Joeiss

08-07-2003, 12:51 PM

Thats very easy to say when your looking from the outside in. Try walking a mile in another man's shoes before condemning them.

Right on.

One Winged Angel

08-07-2003, 10:18 PM

And you are basing this on what? Also, the "flaming homos" comment is pulling a LOT of steam out of your argument. I have a friend who is gay, and he didn't start out as a "flaming homo", but he eventually became one through hanging out with gay people after he caame out of the closet. I think this is a result of feeling repressed for 20 some odd years and feeling like something was wrong with him, rather than he just wants to be gay. Considering the amount of prejudice that homosexuals face in America, I don't think anyone would pick that if they had a choice.[QUOTE]

I'm aware of that, but I'm not pointing fingers at your friend. Personally I do know guys who wanted to gay... sorry, that was a little personal on my part.

[QUOTE]Um, NO. Homosexuals were around a LONG time before Jesus. There are many accounts of gay bath houses in Rome and many other cultures before the birth of Christ. Christ hung out with 12 guys... what does that tell you? (Ok, that was a REALLY bad joke)

I didnt say gays weren't around before or during christ. Now, where was Jesus located during christ... Jerusalem! Even though Jerusalem was apart of the Roman Empire, it wasn't Rome now was it?

Also that was a very disrespectful joke you made.

Thats your religious opinion, not necessarily true. Plus there are even holes in your argument. The Bible has been translated and retranslated numerous times. These were all done by man. If man if inherently fallable, whats to say there weren't mistakes. Maybe God loves Homos and we straight guys are going to burn in hell.

Even though the bible has been retranslated at times, the main point is still put out. I had a looong talk with Bond about this. Also another thing, considering that you don't know anything about the bible, you're not liable to say something like Maybe God loves Homos and we straight guys are going to burn in hell. As a matter of fact god loves every human being. So, why don't you just shove a foot up your @$$. :P

Science can't PROVE that gay men are born straight. Can you PROVE that being gay is just a choice or that God didn't make them that way? I even challenge to to find the part of the Bible that states that God didn't make people gay. Also, if Jesus (who is an extension of God) wanted to treat everyone evenly to follow the word of God, then why are some peope gay, and most aren't? It doesn't sound like they are being treated evenly to me.

I can't say that god didn't make them gay, but I can say that he doesn't want them to be gay.

Even though Jesus wanted people to be treated evenly, people don't. That's the kind of society we live in, not everyone listens to his word. Also, there are non-believers who are still treating them unfairly as well, that doesn't pertain to only christians.

think each church should be allowed to make their own decision on that, except the Catholic church because their own stance in hippocritical considering the actively harbor perverted homosexual priests. At least most gay people aren't predators, unlike those that the Catholic Church protects.

You're speaking for only a very few number of priests. Those are the disgusting sinners that should not have such a role in any church.

Why the government has not gotten involved in whole pedophile priest ordeal, I have no idea. Last time I heard an adult sexually forcing themselves on a minor was against the law.

I am not sure of that either, most likely because the Catholic church is not only in America. Even though most of the cases were, I guess there is a logical explanation of that.

Xantar

08-08-2003, 06:40 AM

Ok, so now it looks like we've got two questions being asked here.

1. Are you, personally and individually, biased against homosexuals?

2. Should the government deny marriage rights to homosexuals?

Justin seems to be answering only the first question (I haven't seen him say anything about government policy). So he doesn't like gay marriage, and if he were some person able to marry two people together like a priest or mayor of a town or something, he wouldn't do it for homosexuals. All right then. It's a stance I don't agree with, but that's nothing new. And besides that, it's not what I would call a stupid argument because it's a simple personal belief.

And to Justin's credit, he hasn't tried to equate homosexuality to pedophilia as some other fundamentalists do. That would have been a really stupid argument, and I'm not sorry for saying so in my previous post.

Now, as has been pointed out numerous times before, it's one thing to say you have a particular opinion and another to say that the government should act on that opinion. I've yet to see a convincing argument that gay marriage should not be allowed by the government. You can say that you personally don't accept it. But what reason can you give for the government not to do so?

Professor S

08-08-2003, 10:13 AM

I didnt say gays weren't around before or during christ. Now, where was Jesus located during christ... Jerusalem! Even though Jerusalem was apart of the Roman Empire, it wasn't Rome now was it?

Also that was a very disrespectful joke you made.

So there weren't any gay people in Jerusalem? How do you know this? Where in the Bible does it say there weren't any gay people in Jerusalem? I guess they were all centralized in Rome then... that makes sense. :rolleyes:

Even though the bible has been retranslated at times, the main point is still put out. I had a looong talk with Bond about this. Also another thing, considering that you don't know anything about the bible, you're not liable to say something like As a matter of fact god loves every human being. So, why don't you just shove a foot up your @$$. :P

How do you know I don't know anything about the Bible? I was raised Methodist and went to Bible school for 4 years and I am in fact a semi-historian of many religions. Just because I look at the Bible as a religious text, one of many, and not a word for word book of law, that doesn't mean I know nothing about it. As for God loving every human being, I believe that but Bible hard-liners who try and turn parables into stark contrasts of black and white use the Bible as a tool of hate, and not love. Christianisty was never meant to be this way, and later on I will point out how.

BTW, excellent way of avoiding MY point. If man relays the POINT, then how can we be sure that the point in not fallable?

Even though Jesus wanted people to be treated evenly, people don't. That's the kind of society we live in, not everyone listens to his word. Also, there are non-believers who are still treating them unfairly as well, that doesn't pertain to only christians.

So Jesus/God treats all people evenly? Then why are people created as homosexuals if by the very act of being that they are to either be tortured by feelings they can NEVER act on, or act on them and burn in hell? Meanwhile, we heterosexuals only have to wait for marriage. People have nothing to do with this argument.[/quote]

You're speaking for only a very few number of priests. Those are the disgusting sinners that should not have such a role in any church.

I agree that they should have no role. But what you view as "few" is relative. I think a few thousand is a LOT. Enough that the Church feels it needs to protect them as they are running low on those who are willing to become priests.

I guess I should state my true purpose in this argument. Religion has been hijacked by those who feel that the Bible is a book of law, and not a book of spirituality. Christianity was never meant to be this way, and the fact that it is is more a result of it being influenced by PAGAN religions that have been incorporated over the years. Before anyone flips out, but think of all the ritual involved in the Catholic church. Ritual is a direct influence from pagan religions.

From the time when Christianity first begain to spread thousands of years ago, Christianity was a Religion based on a book of Parables that were meant to be applied to the way of life of the day. Orthodox religions are the closest to this in today's society. The closest being the Russian Orthodox Church. They realize that the stories told in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. The word of God is intended basically to allow poeple to live to the best of thir ability given their circumstances, not to divide people into sinners and saints. Russian Orthodoxy do not even believe in Hell as we do. They believe that Hell is simply the absence of God. Hell is simply rotting in the ground and the dissipation of the soul. They belive Hell is the lack of being.

Modern Christian religions are more exclusive than inclusive and depend on fear to influence people more than love. I believe in God, and I believe in Him because in my heart I love Him. THAT is faith. Believing in God because a book told you to or because its better than the alternative that is Hell, is not. Its hedging your bets.

You claim that I know nothing about the Bible. I claim that what good is that knowledge, if all you know is the iterpretation of the Bible that has been fed to you since birth? How can you make a judgement when you walk through life with blinders on?

Modern religion is a victim from its own dogma that comes mainly not from the way Christianity begain, but from the outside influences it incorporated over the years to win converts. In fact, whole sections of the Bible have been removed. Ever hear of the Book of Enoch? It was originally in the Old Testament, only to be removed by the Catholic Church as heresy. How can the WORD OF GOD be heresy? Easy, it did not fit with the Catholic Church's own dogma. This is not how it was intended to be.

How do I know this? I have had many long conversations with my friend Edward. He is currently working on his discertation to gain his Doctorate of Philosophy and Religion from the Universtity of Pennsylvania.

Bond

08-08-2003, 01:02 PM

GiMpY-wAnNaBe

08-08-2003, 01:05 PM

So there weren't any gay people in Jerusalem? How do you know this? Where in the Bible does it say there weren't any gay people in Jerusalem? I guess they were all centralized in Rome then... that makes sense. :rolleyes:

How do you know I don't know anything about the Bible? I was raised Methodist and went to Bible school for 4 years and I am in fact a semi-historian of many religions. Just because I look at the Bible as a religious text, one of many, and not a word for word book of law, that doesn't mean I know nothing about it. As for God loving every human being, I believe that but Bible hard-liners who try and turn parables into stark contrasts of black and white use the Bible as a tool of hate, and not love. Christianisty was never meant to be this way, and later on I will point out how.

BTW, excellent way of avoiding MY point. If man relays the POINT, then how can we be sure that the point in not fallable?

So Jesus/God treats all people evenly? Then why are people created as homosexuals if by the very act of being that they are to either be tortured by feelings they can NEVER act on, or act on them and burn in hell? Meanwhile, we heterosexuals only have to wait for marriage. People have nothing to do with this argument

I agree that they should have no role. But what you view as "few" is relative. I think a few thousand is a LOT. Enough that the Church feels it needs to protect them as they are running low on those who are willing to become priests.

I guess I should state my true purpose in this argument. Religion has been hijacked by those who feel that the Bible is a book of law, and not a book of spirituality. Christianity was never meant to be this way, and the fact that it is is more a result of it being influenced by PAGAN religions that have been incorporated over the years. Before anyone flips out, but think of all the ritual involved in the Catholic church. Ritual is a direct influence from pagan religions.

From the time when Christianity first begain to spread thousands of years ago, Christianity was a Religion based on a book of Parables that were meant to be applied to the way of life of the day. Orthodox religions are the closest to this in today's society. The closest being the Russian Orthodox Church. They realize that the stories told in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. The word of God is intended basically to allow poeple to live to the best of thir ability given their circumstances, not to divide people into sinners and saints. Russian Orthodoxy do not even believe in Hell as we do. They believe that Hell is simply the absence of God. Hell is simply rotting in the ground and the dissipation of the soul. They belive Hell is the lack of being.

Modern Christian religions are more exclusive than inclusive and depend on fear to influence people more than love. I believe in God, and I believe in Him because in my heart I love Him. THAT is faith. Believing in God because a book told you to or because its better than the alternative that is Hell, is not. Its hedging your bets.

You claim that I know nothing about the Bible. I claim that what good is that knowledge, if all you know is the iterpretation of the Bible that has been fed to you since birth? How can you make a judgement when you walk through life with blinders on?

Modern religion is a victim from its own dogma that comes mainly not from the way Christianity begain, but from the outside influences it incorporated over the years to win converts. In fact, whole sections of the Bible have been removed. Ever hear of the Book of Enoch? It was originally in the Old Testament, only to be removed by the Catholic Church as heresy. How can the WORD OF GOD be heresy? Easy, it did not fit with the Catholic Church's own dogma. This is not how it was intended to be.

How do I know this? I have had many long conversations with my friend Edward. He is currently working on his discertation to gain his Doctorate of Philosophy and Religion from the Universtity of Pennsylvania.
uhh....what he said

TheGame

08-08-2003, 02:39 PM

Thats very easy to say when your looking from the outside in. Try walking a mile in another man's shoes before condemning them.

It's easier said than done, I'll admit to that... but I mentally put myself in thier shoes, and that's as much as I could do.

Professor S

08-08-2003, 02:45 PM

The question that arises from your points Strangler, at least for me, is that do you take Jesus literally?

By the way, has anyone noticed the more you learn about religion in general the less plausible it seems?

Well there are several views of Christ.

1) He is the literal son of God.

2) He is the embodiment of God on earth. So in essence, he IS God.

3) He was one of many men claiming to be prophets, just that more people took him seriously and he was never really a religious figure, but more of a misguided individual

Personally, I do not know whether Jesus was the savior. I have doubt, and without doubt I cannot proclaim faith in His existence. I have no doubts in the existence of God. To me he is fact. But I also realize that this is only fact to ME. I do not pretend to to be able thrust my beliefs as fact on others. To OWA his beliefs are truth, and I don't pretend to think that any logic can sway him of that because faith defies logic. In that case much of my argument is futile, but I also believe that sharing of information can only serve to enlighten when it comes to religion, as long as it remains civil which I think it has (OK, I was a little prickish, but thats just me :D )

In any case, the story of Jesus is very important to us all. His teachings are as relevant today as they were in his day. Just because I do not becessarily believe in Him, does not mean I do not believe in His teachings or that the archetype of the Christ figure is one that should be ignored. That also does not mean that I follow bllindly through life by those teachings. It is the standard by which the morals of a civilized society are based (but are also shared in many non-Christian beliefs). But these are familial morals, not to be enforced by any government. That is not the government's job. (HOLY CRAP, I'M BACK ON TOPIC!!!)

kevin

08-09-2003, 01:36 AM

But these are familial morals, not to be enforced by any government. That is not the government's job.

That's one statement there that I agree with. I won't say that I agree with all of it, but I agree with that one.

First off, a bit of an introduction to myself : I live in Canada. I lean a bit left on political issues.

That should bring up a few Canadian stereotypes, eh?

But in my opinion, laws stating that marriage is "a union of a man and a woman" are unfair, and in my personal opinion, against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that no one shall be discriminated on for any reason.

The way that I would change it would be to simply change the statement to "a union between two persons."
Then I would simply say that Churches, family values organisations, and other groups weighing in on this subject are free to choose whether or not to marry a proposed couple.

This may be rehashing what has been said in previous posts, but this is what I would do. It's what I believe the Government of Canada is currently considering; and when they implement this it will be one of the few things they've done that I would support.

As to the previous marijuana issue: I don't know whether or not I support decriminilization, much less legalisation. But imagine if we taxed it like beer and tobacco.

Dylflon

08-09-2003, 01:57 AM

Lets everybody stop arguing about whether it's right or not to be gay.

Let's just agree that gay people are no different from you and I and should have equal rights.

Anyways: to releive tension I have decided to post this picture. I don't think anyone can be mad when this picture is around.

http://home.alltel.net/sasche/therespie.jpg

GameMaster

08-12-2003, 01:26 AM

http://www.sdf1.cc/~jonts/misc/e_thug.jpg

Mechadragon

08-15-2003, 09:21 PM

Professor S

08-17-2003, 01:48 AM

http://www.sdf1.cc/~jonts/misc/e_thug.jpg]]I'm sorry GameMaster, I forgot that you prefer to use the internet to avoid thought. If you're so against political and social discussion in these forums, THEN WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN THE SPIN ZONE? Seems pretty stupid to me...

Bond

08-17-2003, 11:22 PM

Professor S

08-18-2003, 10:38 AM

Strangler,

I did some research on the Book of Enoch and from what I read it sounds like it was originally its own book, a very odd book in that. At least Amazon.com is selling it as an entire book...

Its now considered an associated text of the Bible by the Catholic church, after being banned for so many years as heresy. It was lost for a long time but a few copies turned up in Ethiopia of all places. I would also check the validity of the copies sold on Amazon. There are copies of the Necronomicon in print, but those are the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft and not the real document.

If you want more info on any other apocryphal writings or pagan beliefs and organizations I highly recommend www.occultresearch.org. Their piece on the Necronomicon is both eye opening and quite frightening.

EDIT: Here is an online copy of the Book of Enoch
http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

GameMaster

08-18-2003, 07:18 PM

]]I'm sorry GameMaster, I forgot that you prefer to use the internet to avoid thought. If you're so against political and social discussion in these forums, THEN WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN THE SPIN ZONE? Seems pretty stupid to me...

Don't hate me for being efficient. :)

I did the following:

1. Showed a picture of a cool car
2. Showed a picture demonstrating Photoshop effects
3. Made a point about arguing over such a controversial issue.

FissionMailed

08-18-2003, 09:38 PM

I think most of the major points have been presented so all i'll say is i'm not against gay marriage and I feel that nobody should not be allowed to be married for being gay. Also on the subject of the book of enoch and it's removal from the bible by the catholic religion, I think you should all read a book called: The Da Vinci Code, it expains alot about the catholic religions removal of certain parts of the bible.

Professor S

08-18-2003, 11:01 PM

Don't hate me for being efficient. :)

I did the following:

1. Showed a picture of a cool car
2. Showed a picture demonstrating Photoshop effects
3. Made a point about arguing over such a controversial issue.

...In a forum intended for arguing over just those topics, in a thread specifically intended to discuss the issue. Great job there, Plato. Discussion outside of video games isn't always pointless, and can often be enlightening. You should try it sometime.

GameMaster

08-18-2003, 11:15 PM

Your cruel words hit me like spears of hatred.

Bond

08-18-2003, 11:17 PM

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/404davey.jpg

Professor S

08-19-2003, 08:36 AM

Your cruel words hit me like spears of hatred.

Hatred? No. Just a little advice for character development.

And yes, Bond, I too love the syrupy sweet buzz of Mountain Dew. :D

GameMaster

08-19-2003, 12:36 PM

If I become a better character can we be allies again?

Professor S

08-19-2003, 12:55 PM

If I become a better character can we be allies again?

Well I wouldn't go THAT far... :D

If you don't like debating over social and political issues, then DON'T say anything in the forum that is intended for just such discussion. When you do, you sound like a contrarian who contributes nothing to the debate and just likes to read his own posts.

TheSlyMoogle

08-20-2003, 09:02 PM

True story time.

I first encountered gay people when I started High school. There were a few openly gay people around. I never tried to talk to them, it was super scary. I had always been told that gay people were really bad. My parents are super prejudice.

So when I started working at McDonald's I had to work with 3 gay people. At first I was a little freaked out. But once I got to know them they were okay. Well two of them, One is a super jerk. Anyway, the point is, they're human beings just like us. And just like us straight people they too can feel love. So why shouldn't they be allowed to get married? Just like straight people they could take they're love to the ultimate point, marriage. I feel bad for some of the devout religious people that are posting in this thread. They don't really know what they are talking about. And as far as gay people being worthless because they can't reproduce, I don't see where that matters? People are always useful no matter if they can reproduce or not. So people make you burgers and some pump your gas, some save your butt from lawsuits, and some help you with your stock options. Gay people are everywhere. I don't think they should have to suffer all this abuse, I don't think they should have to suffer a war-monger like G.Dubya telling them they can't get married. What the heck does he know, that retard can barely read.

Now I'm not gay myself, but I wouldn't go as far to say that it's impossible to fall in love with another man. If something like that was to happen, it would happen. I'm not close-minded enough to close so many doors opened to me.

I hate Christianity. If any religion is a plague upon humanity, it's christianity and any branches of it. It makes me so angry to think of all the things that christianity has screwed up over the years. Instead of worrying over things like same sex marriages we should worry about all the people who die everyday because of religion and all the stupid things it does to people. How could someone believe in something so unrealistic as god? How could someone take another's life in the name of Allah, or in the name of God? So much hate in this world is caused by religion.

Bond

08-20-2003, 09:08 PM

a war-monger like G.Dubya telling them they can't get married. What the heck does he know, that retard can barely read.
Post... was... going... so... well...

I hate Christianity. If any religion is a plague upon humanity, it's christianity and any branches of it. It makes me so angry to think of all the things that christianity has screwed up over the years. Instead of worrying over things like same sex marriages we should worry about all the people who die everyday because of religion and all the stupid things it does to people. How could someone believe in something so unrealistic as god? How could someone take another's life in the name of Allah, or in the name of God? So much hate in this world is caused by religion.
I wouldn't say that Christianity is a plague upon humanity, that is rather extreme. Christians have done many good things throughout the years. But just as every human organization they are corrupt. And a concept of a God is not an unrealistic one, considering we do not know what is realistic.

If there ever was a peaceful religion it would have to be Buddhism. I'm not such which religion is factually the most violent. I would guess it would be Muslims or Christians.

Professor S

08-20-2003, 09:36 PM

I'm not close-minded enough to close so many doors opened to me.

And then you wrote this...

How could someone believe in something so unrealistic as god? How could someone take another's life in the name of Allah, or in the name of God? So much hate in this world is caused by religion.

Way to close all those doors you say you like to keep open. Has Christianity only done good in this world? There was the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials and Witch Hunts, Crusades, etc. But what you don't read so much about in history books is all the good it has done, such as feeding millions of starving people, almost endless public service and charity and the fact that ALL of our morals stem from Christianity, whether you believe in God or not. It was Christian morals that led to the end of slavery. Most Pagan religions saw nothing wrong with it.

I may not be a Christian, but I have brains enough to recognize that Christianity has done far more good than evil in this world.

Stonecutter

08-20-2003, 10:34 PM

I hate Christianity. If any religion is a plague upon humanity, it's christianity and any branches of it. It makes me so angry to think of all the things that christianity has screwed up over the years. Instead of worrying over things like same sex marriages we should worry about all the people who die everyday because of religion and all the stupid things it does to people. How could someone believe in something so unrealistic as god? How could someone take another's life in the name of Allah, or in the name of God? So much hate in this world is caused by religion.

Sir, I salute you :bowdown:

Take a ****ing bow.

yes, I realize the irony in my "bowing down" to him after applauding him for decrying religion

playa_playa

08-21-2003, 12:45 AM

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage? Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

As far as I've been paying attention, there has been no absolute evidence that there is a "gay gene" or that there is some hereditary condition that forces a person to be homosexual. And until that datum is ascertained, do you not think that we should reserve our judgement intent on changing our laws and norms? Most of you, obviously, do not think so. Since most of you for gay marriages seem to think that "being gay is pretty much hereditary (nice evidence!)" it is the case that homosexuality is intrinsic. Well, show me some data to support that. Last time I checked, not even the human genome project has been able to accomplish this.

It's a very, very simple inference. Seriously, just because a lot of people start saying that marrying animals (this has happened already), your family members, inanimate objects or what have you should be legal, does that mean we should change the laws to cater them? I mean, when does it stop?

Professor S

08-21-2003, 10:52 AM

I'm dismayed to find that there have been no compelling or cogent arguments against gay marriages in this thread. And before any logic-bereft individual accuses me of being homophobic, let me just say that I have no stance on the issue. But as things stand, there are sound reasons for the government to oppose the legalization of gay marriages.

Changing norms in a society invariably presents a predicament. That is, until the norm in question has been determined to be evil or inhumane, there is no sound justification to change it. Why should there be? Many people oppose the right to bear arms. The reason that the second amendment has not been declared unconstitutional, however, is the fact that there has been no clinching evidence that it is somehow evil, inhumane, unconstitutional, or unjust.

Gay marriages present a similar question: do we have a justification to change the existing laws (therefore, changing the societal norms) in favor of gay marriage?

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

Well, would that decision not depend on whether being gay is absolutely intrinsic? In other words, what if it's the case that homosexuality is strictly a learned behavior? That, noone is born gay, but are conditioned to be gay through trauma, accidents or etc (I'm not advocating that such is the case with homosexuality; I'm just asking why should the laws be changed if this were the case)? And in which case, the person could be reconditioned to be straight? Societies do not and should not change its norms to cater to those that are deviant to them. It should be the other way around. After all, do we not tell drug addicts that although they are clinically addicted, they should still seek help and become sober (thereby being readmitted to the society's norms)?

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

playa_playa

08-21-2003, 12:26 PM

Its called the CONSTITUTION. It states that all men (people) are to be treated equally. Now, when one sexuality is given a privaledge and another is not, that is not equal. Therefore, denying gays the right to marry in unconstitutional. This makes it unjust and I'm sure many would argue inhumane as you are denying human rights. I won't even mention whther or not its "evil" as thats a silly concept to put in law as its far to relative to legislate.

But that aspect of the Constitution is based on traits that human beings have no control over, such as race and gender. I'm asking, is this the case with homosexuality. Well, does anyone know for sure? Courts deny addicts custody of their children sometimes. In your view, should this not be unconstitutional?

Such an argument could be made about anti-semitism. Are you born a Jew or are you a Jew by Religion alone? If so, it is not the societal norm and therefore there should have been nothing wrong with making separate laws treating them differently. Once start categorizing people by ANY stereotype and start using that category to determine that way they are treated, you are then being both unconstitutional and unjust. Slavery was once a "norm" of society and considered just fine as black people were considered more like cattle than human beings. Does that mean it shouldn't have been changed? Remember, what we consider to be "evil" and "unjust" often change as our societal norms change and the law should accomodate those changes as we develop as a society. People are people and they should be treated as such and therefore equally.

The difference is, the Jewish religion does not do anything that goes against the laws of the United States. Homosexuality is fine until it is put into question whether it should be validated in the form of marriage. In which case, it should rightly be questioned whether it is a genuinely human trait (hardcoded in our genetics).

And what's with this unconstitutional hoopla? Your views on the 14th Amendment is somewhat erroneous to your standards. Simply stated, the 14th Amendment does not force the government to stop categorizing people by stereotypes. Why do we give disabled people special previliges then?

Why, sadists love to torture people to attain sexual stimulation. Does that mean we let it go since well, sadists are just sadists and they're only people?

Please expalin how keeping laws in place that treat one group of people differently than another in constitutional and "just".

So, treating disabled people differently to give them previliges is unconstitutional? Uh-huh. Registering people under the sexual offenders list is unconstitutional? Right. The government should rightly treat people differently.

And why do you even care? How does legalizing gay marriage affect you? Why is it even illegal if it does not matter to anyone ecept those that are getting married?

If some aspect of the society condones ethically unsound actions, I shudder to think that the citizens should just stand by and do nothing. According to your views, marriages between brothers and sisters should be fine also (since it affects only those that are getting married). Problem is, it marks a moral bankruptcy of a society to allow an ethically unsound legislation to pass. Now, I'm not saying homosexuality is an ethically unsound behavior. I'm merely saying that we do not know for sure whether it is or it isn't (given the lack of genetic evidence). When this is the case, should we pass a legislation to change our norm to suit homosexuality? When we don't even know for sure its very nature?

Professor S

08-21-2003, 04:44 PM

Bond

08-21-2003, 04:59 PM

Having a brother and sister become married is medically dangerous to their offspring though.
I think that's an entirely different issue.

playa_playa

08-21-2003, 05:38 PM

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call you on this one; as I think our constitution (and ultimately the Declaration of Independence) is a supreme paradigm of liberal and utilitarianistic moral principles. If you have heard of John Locke, and his influence on our constitution through his ethical principles, I would HARDLY make a claim so as to assert: "it is not the government's responsibility to legislate morals." Unless you have an abnormally narrow definition of morals, I seriously cannot see your point (such as your examples of petty and needless ordinances and statutes). Why, your assertion that the government must treat its citizens equally in and of itself is an ethical principle. It is an ethical principle in that it emphasizes the dignity and individuality of human beings (hallmark of classic liberalism).

Also, deciding as a society the right of homosexuals to marry when we don't know for sure that it is intrinsic does not seem to be a strictly personal moral issue. Whether you like it or not, people's marriages have effects on other people. Case in point: divorces that ruin children, creating problems for the society. This is a socially-relevant issue. Therefore, the society must have a say.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

Well, the original topic pertained to gay marriages in general. And whether they should be allowed. Certainly, such a federal law should not be considered until there has been substantial amount of hard evidence.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.

Why do people delude themselves into thinking this way? Are people really disconnected from each other this way to have no effect on each other? Do you honestly think that a person's actions have no bearing on another?

It's like the argument with drug users. Right, they are only hurting themselves. Uh-huh. Suppose the addict OD's and requires medical attention but does not have the money to do so b/c he's spent it all on drugs. Who do you think will pay for his care? We, as a society, cannot look past him and merely say, "oh, it's all his fault so let him die."

This sort of assertion that the actions we take only affect ourselves is simply ludicrous. Unless you're living under a rock, everything that you do will have an affect on other people.

This is exactly why the government has limited rights to enact "moral legislations." I hate the idea of the government dictating our lives just as much as the next guy. But some people need guidance through laws.
Forsaking them in lieu of anarchistic privatism is an action of cowardice, not constitutionality.

Professor S

08-21-2003, 05:56 PM

playa_playa

08-22-2003, 01:51 AM

I think we have two very different ideaologies. I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. I don't think I need someone telling me what I can or can;t do to myself. I believe drugs should be legalized, but with the same stipulatios that are put on alcohol abuse. If they get in trouble, they should get no more or less assistance than alcoholics get when they eventually rot away and die. Afterall, the only reason why alcohol wasn't included in the list of banned drugs is because those that made the laws DRANK.

I don't believe that any morals should be applied to the consitution, as I think its a violation of separation of church and state. Liek religion, morals are relative to everyone. By your logic, if premarital sex is considered immoral, then it should be outlawed.

And as for the damage that divorce does to kids, even more reason to allow gays to marry. We straight people can only get marriage right 40% of the time. Maybe we should give gay people a crack at it.

My political and social beliefs follow this simply axiom:

You should be able to flail your fist around as much as you like, as long as it stops at the end of my nose.

I think you are misconstruing my assertions a little here. I'm not saying that governments should have total say over people's private lives; quite the opposite. I am merely saying that governments have a right to legislate laws that limit personal morality insofar as it may contribute to the downfall of the society and proliferation of cruelty. As with the example I gave with the drug addict, ultimately, the society suffers because of the addict's personal choice. I mean, what are we gonna do if the addict needs medical help? Deny him the help because he is an addict and because that is his personal moral choice to keep abusing drugs?

Premarital sex is not legislated against because it does not strictly result in harm for the society. And the last time I checked, some forms of premarital sex are strictly forbidden in the guise of statutory rapes. Could we say that it is only the couple's choice to have sex even if the girl is underaged? That, it is strictly their personal, moral choice to do so?

But let me emphasize the point again: the government does and rightly should enact ethical legislations insofar as they attempt to eliminate cruelty and regression, without violating genuine individuality. Do gays have a right to marry? Well, we don't know yet. But I know for a fact that we have, long ago, reached a consensus that not all things breathing should have a right to marry each other. So our burden falls on ascertaining whether homosexuality is a genuinely-human trait. If we do not determine this first and then let gays marry each other, why not let siblings, people and animals, and people and inanimate objects to marry also? Gee, I'd really hate to explain to my kids why a man and a cow strolling down central park are french kissing each other since laws are not allowed to have a say in ethics.

You're absolutely right in stating that you and I have very different ideologies. I have, long ago, inferrred that a government is an institution wrought not only to give people security and a place to call their country, but that it also fosters, not forces, a moral progress. Sure, masochistic self-afflictions can stay private. They just need to stay within the person. But does anyone obstinately believe that personal moral choices solely stay within the person? What if it has a deprecating, unwanted effect on other people also? In such a case, a government should step in(after a democratic consensus has been reached pertaining to the moral in question) and direct the society into achieving a moral progress.

Professor S

08-22-2003, 08:35 AM

The trouble with the government spurring moral progress is that one person's morals are not necessarily another person's morals. As I stated earlier, morals are a reflection of religion. Christian morals differ from Islam morals which differ from Buddhist morals which differ from Shinto morals. So which morals should government spurr along?

Also, pre-marital sex IS detrimental to everyone. Unless you think teenage pregnancy, single parenthood and the world wide spread of sexually transmitted diseases aren't detrimental. The point is that its a reflection of personal choice. The fact that gay marriage is rebuffed while pre-maritial sex is accepted is a reflection of bigotry masking as reason, not high moral ideals.

But I guess some people will just continue to be more free than others as long as we continue to try and legisate morals relative to Christian beliefs in a supposed secular society.

TheGame

08-22-2003, 09:53 AM

If you want to throw morals out of the window, guess it's ok for a 13 year old girl to have sex with a 50 year old man as long as they are married right? They aren't hurting you, right?

I think if there were no morals in law, I should be able to walk down the street with a shogun asking people for money, as long as I don't point the gun at thier head and give them the freedom to say no, it's ok right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

I also guess I should be able to walk outside naked and whack off while women walk past me right? Like you said, waiving a fist in your face but not hitting you?

Laws that protect against this stuff are based off of morality... man should have freedom, but not that much. Morality is what keeps society from breaking down, and I think it has little to nothing to do with religion.

Now, I'm talking morality in general, not just on the gay marrage subject. I don't think that gay people should be allowed the same rights because we don't know if this is just a weird non-genetic sexual preference that is getting out of hand or not.

I don't see any good reasons to let hem be married, not only from a religios stand point, but from a Scientific and Social standpoint. I mean, it's not like they can't change who they are to fit in. This is FAR different from giving black people rights... because they can't change thier skin color, or even hide it no matter what they do. If it was as easy as lying and saying they are white, they would have just to fit in, but they couldn't.

Gay people don't have a sign on thier head saying that they are gay unless they want to. Some people who 'act' gay are some of the most homophobic people I have met in my life.

But, I guess what I'm trying to say is, gay marrage is just pushing it. Straight marrage should be supported because without a man and a woman having sex and producing children, NONE of us would be here. But gay marrage is a whole different thing... they can love each-other but why should it be protected by law? Is same sex marrage really going to help anything? All I can see it doing is pissing a bunch of people off.

Crono

08-22-2003, 10:28 AM

If you want to throw morals out of the window, guess it's ok for a 13 year old girl to have sex with a 50 year old man as long as they are married right? They aren't hurting you, right?

I think if there were no morals in law, I should be able to walk down the street with a shogun asking people for money, as long as I don't point the gun at thier head and give them the freedom to say no, it's ok right? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

I also guess I should be able to walk outside naked and whack off while women walk past me right? Like you said, waiving a fist in your face but not hitting you?

Laws that protect against this stuff are based off of morality... man should have freedom, but not that much. Morality is what keeps society from breaking down, and I think it has little to nothing to do with religion.

Society already is low. Excessive drugs, alcohol, gangs, and so on. If anything, society will eventually "break down" with or without gay marriages. That's the way I see it.

Now, I'm talking morality in general, not just on the gay marrage subject. I don't think that gay people should be allowed the same rights because we don't know if this is just a weird non-genetic sexual preference that is getting out of hand or not.

I don't see any good reasons to let hem be married, not only from a religios stand point, but from a Scientific and Social standpoint. I mean, it's not like they can't change who they are to fit in. This is FAR different from giving black people rights... because they can't change thier skin color, or even hide it no matter what they do. If it was as easy as lying and saying they are white, they would have just to fit in, but they couldn't.

Keep in mind that most "true" gays do no choose to be gay. The chemicals in your brain can make you attractive to the same sex, and not the opposite. And why would a person want to lie to fit in? Who would want to live a life of lies? Maybe you should try it out. To lie in order to "fit in" really isn't fitting in at all.

Gay people don't have a sign on thier head saying that they are gay unless they want to. Some people who 'act' gay are some of the most homophobic people I have met in my life.

But, I guess what I'm trying to say is, gay marrage is just pushing it. Straight marrage should be supported because without a man and a woman having sex and producing children, NONE of us would be here. But gay marrage is a whole different thing... they can love each-other but why should it be protected by law? Is same sex marrage really going to help anything? All I can see it doing is pissing a bunch of people off.

I don't understand how gay marriages can piss people off. What would cause you to be pissed off at gay marriages? Jealousy? That's the only thing I can think of. Like Strangler said, it only effects the gay people and not the straight. I don't see how straight people can be pissed off over the fact that other people are receiving the same freedom as them.

TheGame

08-22-2003, 11:34 AM

Keep in mind that most "true" gays do no choose to be gay. People can be born gay. The chemicals in your brain can make you attractive to the same sex, and not the opposite. And why would a person want to lie to fit in? Who would want to live a life of lies? Maybe you should try it out. To lie in order to "fit in" really isn't fitting in at all.

You have skipped the last 15 posts right? Just because the chemicals in your brain tell you to do somthing, it doesn't mean it's right. People can be born with brain desieses.

Also, besides that... where is the proof? People are walking around this thread saying people are born gay, but I do't ever remember reading anything in my science book at school defending this.

I don't think people are born gay or straight... how are you supposed to know if you are sexually attracted to anybody before you even know what sex is and before you have a sex drive? You learn to like things, you aren't born that way.

Depending on where you were born and how you were raised, you grow up to be a different person. Until there is solid proof that being gay is genetic, It shouldn't be treated the same. Right now, they are very accepted in society, and thier rights to live are just as good as anybody else's. So why take it tothe next level before we even know if they are really born gay?

As for the lie part... what I meant by that is they could change who they are and act differently and be accepted even more. It's not like we are treating them inhumane, like they are a lower form of life because of somthing they can change. Gay people don't even have to lie, they can be who they are and thier rights are protected. I was taking a shot at people who were comparing his to holding down a race of people... because it's diferent, far different.

When born black there was nothing they could do to change thier social status, and there was no way out of them having less rights... no matter what they said or did, because the fact is they were stil black. Laws to protect those birth rights are acceptable... because they didn't chose to bewhat they were and thier actions had no effect on how people viewed them.

People who don't like gay people don't like them for an action they made, not for how they look. It's all about who you are on the inside.

I think people being pissed at gay marrages is about the same as people who are against smokeing and drinkng... they are pised becausesombody is doing somthing they personally don't approve of.

Have you ever met a gay person who doesn't approve of man and woman relationships? There may be some, but for the most part they all approve of it because they wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for thier mom and dad.

It's a fundemental truth of life, ittakes a man and a woman to havekida and make the world progress... if it wasn't for one there wouldn't be the other. That's why that is protected under law... now I can't think of a reason een close to that big why gay marage should be protectedunder the law.

Crono

08-22-2003, 12:10 PM

Ah, well, these debates can never end. I can tell you that I am straight and if gay marriage is legalized, it will not bother me at all. Actually, gay marriage was just legalized here. I don't see how it affects other straight people's lives, though. I don't approve a lot of things, but they don't affect my personal/social life.

Too bad, if this weren't a democracy this would have been solved by now...

....

Professor S

08-22-2003, 01:13 PM

You have skipped the last 15 posts right? Just because the chemicals in your brain tell you to do somthing, it doesn't mean it's right. People can be born with brain desieses.

Yes, and we protect those that have brain diseases. We don't treat them as less than.

Also, besides that... where is the proof? People are walking around this thread saying people are born gay, but I do't ever remember reading anything in my science book at school defending this.

I also don't remember reading anything in a science book about homosexuality being a learned behavior. You are arguing with a double edged sword. But I guess we should all just ASSUME its learned and ban it. Even if it is learned, WHO CARES. THEY AREN'T ****ING YOU!!

I don't think people are born gay or straight... how are you supposed to know if you are sexually attracted to anybody before you even know what sex is and before you have a sex drive? You learn to like things, you aren't born that way.

Right... thats why all homosexuals are born in STRAIGHT families.:rolleyes:

Depending on where you were born and how you were raised, you grow up to be a different person. Until there is solid proof that being gay is genetic, It shouldn't be treated the same. Right now, they are very accepted in society, and thier rights to live are just as good as anybody else's.

No, they're not. The fact that straight people can get married and homosexuals can't is a perfect example of how their rights are not the same as ours.

the lie part... what I meant by that is they could change who they are and act differently and be accepted even more. It's not like we are treating them inhumane, like they are a lower form of life because of somthing they can change. Gay people don't even have to lie, they can be who they are and thier rights are protected. I was taking a shot at people who were comparing his to holding down a race of people... because it's diferent, far different.

You could say that denying someone their right to free speech isn't "inhumane" either. Its only unjust and a violation or our rights. Also, I think you are underestimating how much our sexiuality denines us as people. We often take it for granted because we are the norm. The media, religion and societ constantly remind gay people that they are inferior and "freaks". Take a walk in their shoes before proclaiming how fairly they are treated.

When born black there was nothing they could do to change thier social status, and there was no way out of them having less rights... no matter what they said or did, because the fact is they were stil black. Laws to protect those birth rights are acceptable... because they didn't chose to bewhat they were and thier actions had no effect on how people viewed them.

People who don't like gay people don't like them for an action they made, not for how they look. It's all about who you are on the inside.

So, the fact that they are gay on the inside should deny them rights? Wow, thats a completely new form of discrimination.

I think people being pissed at gay marrages is about the same as people who are against smokeing and drinkng... they are pised becausesombody is doing somthing they personally don't approve of.

Have you ever met a gay person who doesn't approve of man and woman relationships? There may be some, but for the most part they all approve of it because they wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for thier mom and dad.

And as I stated earlier, its what has been forced into their skulls since they were small children.

It's a fundemental truth of life, ittakes a man and a woman to havekida and make the world progress... if it wasn't for one there wouldn't be the other. That's why that is protected under law... now I can't think of a reason een close to that big why gay marage should be protectedunder the law.

Yes, and we are quickly becoming overcrowded as a planet. The estimated point when we will have as many people dying as being born is 11 Billion. We are already over 5 Billion and we have gone up several billion in just the past decade. Maybe thins is natures way of evening the playing field because we're popping out too many kids? The point is WE DON'T KNOW. We should give the benefit of the doubt, instead of assuming the worst and doing whatever we can to maintain class systems and oppress others.

Homosexuals in no way affect what we as straight people do or affect out freedoms in any way. Therefore we have no right to tell them what they can or can't do outside of our own laws. Its as simple as that.

As for the moral argument you made, don't be silly. I was referring to decisions made by grown adults, and not those that would affect children. As I stated many times in many ways, the law should protect OTHERS and not try and tell poeple what they can or can't do if those actions basically affect only themselves.

And I'll ask you same question I asked playa: If we live in a secular society, but base laws on morals that are derived from religion, and each religion has different morals, then which set of morals will we choose? Any way you slice it, you will be excluding the rights of other religions whose morals that do not agree with yours. Morals are relative.