Gay marriage

[daybreak]

I must respectfully disagree with every single point in the last post. These so-called studies you've dug up, they sound a little biased to me considering the fact that studies NOT funded by religious institutes have found EXACTLY the opposite. This site you're linking to is just religious propaganda. Approximately 1 in 10 people will identify as 'gay' and slightly more may identify as 'bisexual'. Being the product of two gay parents has NOT been found to increase the incidence of homosexuality in the adopted children of gay couples. It is also a myth that gay people are trying to 'recruit' straight people into their lifestyle as many religious organizations assert-I assure you, the propagation of gay people is 100% dependent on fertile straight couples...I can respect people's religious point of view, but I quickly become offended when people attempt to create a scientific viewpoint based on Biblical teachings. The Bible cannot be argued with, it cannot be proven wrong, it is dogma, which is why it is NOT science; science by its very nature can be proven wrong. It makes no sense to start out with the truth and then back it up with biased 'facts'. I would not pull up a study from a gay rights organization and present it as fact because it would be biased, just as studies conducted by religious organizations are biased.

[StarMan Deluxe!]

BTW,i realize what i said above is a bit off topic,but i jumped into this a little late and just wanted to make my feelings about the whole gay thing clear.

[RXS]

I must respectfully disagree with every single point in the last post.  These so-called studies you've dug up, they sound a little biased to me considering the fact that studies NOT funded by religious institutes have found EXACTLY  the opposite.  This site you're linking to is just religious propaganda.  Approximately 1 in 10 people will identify as 'gay' and slightly more may identify as 'bisexual'.  Being the product of two gay parents has NOT been found to increase the incidence of homosexuality in the adopted children of gay couples.  It is also a myth that gay people are trying to 'recruit' straight people into their lifestyle as many religious organizations assert-I assure you, the propagation of gay people is 100% dependent on fertile straight couples...I can respect people's religious point of view, but I quickly become offended when people attempt to create a scientific viewpoint based on Biblical teachings.  The Bible cannot be argued with, it cannot be proven wrong, it is dogma, which is why it is NOT science; science by its very nature can be proven wrong.  It makes no sense to start out with the truth and then back it up with biased 'facts'.  I would not pull up a study from a gay rights organization and present it as fact because it would be biased, just as studies conducted by religious organizations are biased.

6983[/snapback]

You can disagree all you want, but at least I provided some data for review. So if I understand you correctly, the points have no basis because you say so. Are we to assume you are an expert in this area by the way you quickly dismiss the studies (you make some pretty incredible statements that have yet to be proven - care to back up some of your claims)? Another assumption that you make is that all the studies were funded by a religious institute...I can't draw that same conclusion.

 

Disagree with every single point eh? I think you've just shown us how objective you are on this subject. The first half of my post is pretty solid logic...then again, maybe not if you are closed minded. Maybe you just believe/read the studies that support your point of view.

 

One of the few benefits of these forums is that if done right, they can provide another viewpoint that differs from the mainstream. Maybe, just maybe, we can re-educate ourselves as we seek knowledge and understanding.

[daybreak]

While I would not consider myself an 'expert' in this particular area, I am close to completing a bachelor's degree in psychology and this has been an area of particular interest to me. Point in fact, I have an informal paper due this week on this very issue for my Crisis Intervention class-we are to debate whether or not we feel that homosexuals should fight for the right to get married. I can tell you that every single psychology textbook I've had so far has disclaimed its discussion of homosexual topics by stating that while homosexuality is a contemporary issue of some controversy, it has not been found to be maladaptive. The issue of 'reparative therapy' has come up in recent years and this statement was released by the following organizations...

 

"The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association developed and endorsed the following statement in 1999:

 

"The most important fact about 'reparative therapy,' also sometimes known as 'conversion therapy,' is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. [Our organizations], together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure.' ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm."

 

I will attempt to furnish this discussion with further scientific studies but as you can see, secular mental health organizations like these tend to agree on the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a mental health 'problem'.

 

That said...I realize that the topic of 'gay marriage' is a difficult concept to swallow-many gay activists are a bit dismayed that the topic has been brought up so brazenly by many conservative lawmakers, who, by most accounts, realize that the American public probably isn't ready to tackle the issue with love and acceptance as yet-which creates an optimal opportunity to attempt to pass legislation banning the practice of gay marriage. I fully understand that not everyone has a stake in the 'gay marriage' debate and that people can and should be conflicted about this issue, it's perfectly natural. It's a bit ridiculous to expect the public at this point in time to embrace the concept of gay marriage without some serious consideration and a long period of time in which to consider the issue.

 

If you all will notice, our discussion has predictably ventured into whether or not homosexuality is a sin or 'wrong' in whatever respect-with attention turned away from whether or not they should get married, which is highly indicative that homosexuality itself is on trial, not interpretation of the law, which again, is perfectly understandable.

[Coty]

Clearly marrying one, and marrying two people, are two very different things.

6954[/snapback]

 

 

Really? How do you figure that? If a man loves two women, why can't he marry them both? Where in the world do you get this idea that a man can't have two wifes?

 

And I'm not even going to argue the rest. You people want to hear our opinion about gay marriage. You even bring up religion in the first place. Then if someone says something drastic, like tell you WHY they believe what they do, you shoot it down. Would it have been sufficient for me just to tell you that I was against it? How could I without telling you why? Homosexuality is something I really wouldn't want to see. I think it's gross. I think if society makes gay marriage legal, society is accepting it. And the religious society, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, will not accept it. Is marriage not based on religious beliefs? You can't just throw that aside and say, "Give me another reason." OK, because I say so.

 

Give me one good reason why a man can't have two or three wifes. And PLEASE don't say religion or, "Morally Wrong!" There are no morals when you take out religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No problem Starman !

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

Coty:

 

Is marriage not based on religious beliefs?

No, it isn't. We're talking about civil marriage here, not religious marriage. One is ruled by the bible and its interpretations (or whatever the religion in question uses), the other by the rule of law.

 

When we remove the barriers of religious beliefs, and make homosexuality legal, as in marriage, we MUST also include polygamy.

No. No. No. The reason for gay marriage is that people should not be discriminated against based on sexual preference. I don't think polygamy is much of a sexual preference. From here:

 

In short: None of the principles supporting gay marriage offers support for polygamy. Rather the opposite. And polygamy is not likely to be widely advocated because — unlike same-sex marriage — it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies.

 

RXS:

 

Marriage:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contracted relationship recognized by law.

So first you define marriage as only between a man and a woman and then you say marriage has to be only between a man and a woman because it's only between a man and a woman. That's begging the question (or, circular reasoning). Pretty solid logic? Humbug!

 

As for your source, here's a list of background info. For some actual science, see my post above.

 

marriage's purpose and ultimate essence is not living together as man and wife but it is procreation.

If that's the only criterium, people who can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Is that what you're saying? If not, marriage must be about more than just that. (And it's not like people can't procreate without marriage.)

 

(And I think this is what Starman was referring to. )

[Genesis]

There are no morals when you take out religion.

 

Sorry Coty, but of course there is. It's called common sense. Would you state that creationists are immoral people? You don't need faith to be a good person. Clearly, most of our moral principles, I mean in our western civilization, are based upon the Bible. But there already were principles of life, or common sense, in other cultures before. Some are only philosophies, some are other religions.

 

As for marriage being the union of a man and a woman, that clearly derives from our religious culture too. Countries that have chosen to allow gay civil marriage make a difference between people's beliefs and their law, that's it. It may hurt some, but change other's lives in a positive way. After all, if everything that is morally wrong, according to the Bible, had to be prohibited, we wouldn't be able to do many things. The death penalty is legal in some Christian countries / states, though it is a crime according to the New Testament. When Jesus was about to be stoned by a lynch mob, and said that the one who never commited a sin could throw the first stone, I think he was refering to anyone, not just him. We are not perfect anymore, and therefore should not kill another human being for his sins.

 

If you wish to base your way of life, or your beliefs, on the Bible, then why not do it completely? At least, Jehovah's witnesses, for example, don't agree with gay marriage and condemn homosexuality, but wouldn't apply for a job in the Army either, because they try to stick to Jesus' message of peace...

[Spacko]

Really? How do you figure that? If a man loves two women, why can't he marry them both? Where in the world do you get this idea that a man can't have two wifes?

 

And I'm not even going to argue the rest. You people want to hear our opinion about gay marriage. You even bring up religion in the first place. Then if someone says something drastic, like tell you WHY they believe what they do, you shoot it down. Would it have been sufficient for me just to tell you that I was against it? How could I without telling you why? Homosexuality is something I really wouldn't want to see. I think it's gross. I think if society makes gay marriage legal, society is accepting it. And the religious society, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, will not accept it. Is marriage not based on religious beliefs? You can't just throw that aside and say, "Give me another reason." OK, because I say so.

 

Give me one good reason why a man can't have two or three wifes. And PLEASE don't say religion or, "Morally Wrong!" There are no morals when you take out religion.

6990[/snapback]

 

Right, that seems to be one misunderstanding here. I'm not advocating gays' right to a walk down the aisle at the church, a priest and ringing bells as they drive off into the sunset. If religious communities decide they want to offer this lovely tradition to gay people that would be wonderful, if not then that's their right. But as the church wedding is really the image most of us associate to the word "marriage", I suggest we clarify a little.

 

Partnership or civil union can be used to describe a legal, but secular equivalent to marriage available to anyone. Such a form of union is an obvious right of gay and straight people alike. Why? Because marriage is not only about emotional exclusivity, promising monogamy and stability anymore. It carries economic benefits and spousal legal rights. Although marriage may be a "copyright" of religion, these rights must be available to all or none citizens somehow.

 

As for polygamy Coty, I never really sat down to think why that's so wrong and now that I try I can't think of a big one why it's wrong. If done right I imagine it could be both practical and nice, if done wrong I'm sure it would be extremely unpleasant. I suppose experience indicates it usually ends up wrong? But well my main point was that your idea that if we allow one "deviating" sexual habit we must allow all just doesn't cut it. Next we have to allow incest and paedophilia because gay people have their rights? Surely not.

[RXS]

Sonic Goo,Jul 6 2005, 01:42 AM]

RXS:

So first you define marriage as only between a man and a woman and then you say marriage has to be only between a man and a woman because it's only between a man and a woman. That's begging the question (or, circular reasoning). Pretty solid logic? Humbug!

(And I think this is what Starman was referring to. )

6995[/snapback]

 

Read this real slow so you understand.

 

1. Marriage:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contracted relationship recognized by law.

 

2. If it is anything other than husband and wife, by definition, it is not marriage. (Nice try on the circular logic, but it does not work here.)

 

 

Coty:

 

 

QUOTE

Is marriage not based on religious beliefs?

 

No, it isn't. We're talking about civil marriage here, not religious marriage. One is ruled by the bible and its interpretations (or whatever the religion in question uses), the other by the rule of law

 

Yes, it is based on religious beliefs. You are trying to split hairs and change the parameters of the original question. Marriage is based on religious beliefs clear back to Adam and Eve. Call it a civil union if you will, but not a marriage. A marriage is between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman.

 

 

From your page:

Paul Cameron is both the best known, and the least credible, of the various psychologists, medical doctors, and associated professionals which actively collaborate with the Religious Right, and attempt to lend a veneer of scientific respectability to the Religious Right's anti-gay propaganda.

Maybe you are right, but if you read some of the articles on page you posted, he is clearly the poster child for resentment towards anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong in the Gay/Lesbian community. Obviously Gay/Lesbians don't like what he has to say...it almost smells of a smear campaign.

 

If that's the only criterium, people who can't have children shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Is that what you're saying? If not, marriage must be about more than just that. (And it's not like people can't procreate without marriage.)

Most religious groups feel that procreation should be done within the bonds of marriage (no pre-marital sex). You typically wouldn't know that you were unable to have kids until after you were married.

[daybreak]

Read this real slow so you understand.

 

1.  Marriage:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband and wife in a consensual and contracted relationship recognized by law.

 

2.  If it is anything other than husband and wife, by definition, it is not marriage.  (Nice try on the circular logic, but it does not work here.)

Yes, it is based on religious beliefs.  You are trying to split hairs and change the parameters of the original question.  Marriage is based on religious beliefs clear back to Adam and Eve.  Call it a civil union if you will, but not a marriage.  A marriage is between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman.

7033[/snapback]

 

*sigh*(again). Sorry RXS but you are incorrect again...First of all, who's definition of marriage is this? Yours perhaps? Webster's dictionary defines it as follows...

 

"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons"

 

Secondly, marriage is NOT, I repeat, NOT a religious institution in this country...You can be any religion or have absolutely no religion and still get married in this country. Do you not agree with this? Nobody is trying to force any religion in this country to accept homosexuality or gay marriage-the issue is completely independent of religion, it concerns discrimination and laws, NOT religion!

 

 

[RXS]

*sigh*(again).  Sorry RXS but you are incorrect again...First of all, who's definition of marriage is this?  Yours perhaps?  Webster's dictionary defines it as follows...

 

"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law  (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons"

 

7041[/snapback]

LOL! You quoted the definition I provided nearly verbatum from Webster!...so why do you ask who's definition it is? (2) is a recent addition to the deffinition of the word marriage and is not in my 1995 copyright Webster Dictionary.

 

The foundation of marriage is, and I repeat, is based upon religious beliefs/principles. Is it strictly a religious institution? No. Do you have to be of a certain religion to be married? No. Do you have to believe in God to be married? No. Who performs 90+% of marriages ceremonies in the world? A religious leader. Where is the typical place a marriage ceremony is held? A church. What does the federal government recognize marriage as? The legal union of a man and a woman.

 

 

More supporting views here

[Spacko]

As much as it pains me (just kidding ) I must admit RXS has a very valid point right there. Using the word marriage in both contexts is, in addition to confusing, plain wrong. Most connotations of marriage indeed include churches and priests and making a vow before god. As the elements of this debate go, this one is not going to lead anywhere - so let's just use two different terms to clear up what we mean.

[daybreak]

The foundation of marriage is, and I repeat, is based upon religious beliefs/principles.  Do you have to be of a certain religion to be married? No.  Do you have to believe in God to be married? No.  Who performs 90+% of marriages ceremonies in the world?  A religious leader.  Where is the typical place a marriage ceremony is held?  A church.  What does the federal government recognize marriage as?  The legal union of a man and a woman.

7051[/snapback]

 

Obviously as far as Webster is concerned, the times are a-changin'...and secondly, I believe you have just committed both an 'Appeal To Tradition' and an 'Appeal To Popularity' fallacy.

 

Appeal To Popularity-The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

 

Appeal To Tradition-Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

 

1. X is old or traditional

2. Therefore X is correct or better.

 

Just because the federal government does or does not sanction a particular 'act' or 'behavior' does not mean that people have do not have every right to fight for the right to do what they feel is right for them.

 

Are you beginning to realize that if religion dictated our laws and policies that we'd be in a very bad situation? The Islamic State Of Afghanistan under the Taliban comes to mind...What if our leaders were Muslim, or Wiccan, or Santerians, and they decided that their particular religion was better than Christianity? Would I hear you crying foul at that point? Many religions in the world, before they were indoctrinated by Abrahamic (Christian) religions, had no such prejudices against homosexuality.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Religion

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[RXS]

Please! You are impossible. I'm done with this debate as there is no point banging my head against the wall any longer. You didn't even address the fact that you used the same definition that I used and still had the gall to ask if I made the definition up.

 

 

And by the way, our country was founded on Christian principles. shocking isn't it.

[daybreak]

RXS-I apologize you assuming that you made the definition up-however, you didn't cite where you got it, which led me to assume that you came up with it yourself...

 

Secondly, the 'founding fathers' argument is a bit more complicated...I have gotten in the debate about whether or not this country was founded on Christian principles before and it was ugly. Long story short, both myself and the individual I was debating against were able to find quotes from the founding fathers that suited our argument In short, it appears that they were all over the place back then! Here is a web page of a guy named Steven Morris, it was simply linked off of Wikipedia (this obviously isn't scientific and he obviously feels very passionate about the subject).

 

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

 

I'll bet that completely contradictory quotes can be found elseware that are just as authentic.

 

Lastly, I think that whether or not this country was founded on Christian principles is missing the point. Obviously, there is a great deal of wisdom and altruism in Christianity and the Bible has beautiful, poetic, and life affirming stories-but at the same time, Christianity has an ugly, bloody past and the Bible is full of contradictions. That said, even if the country was founded solely on Christian principles, that does not mean that the freedom to make choices should not exist. You're still sitting here telling me that Christianity is superior in this country, but I say it is only superior in that the people currently in power have utilized their interpretation of it to run the country. Luckily, the first Amendment to the Constitution is clear on the subject...

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

 

Even if the country were founded 'only' on Christian principles, the founding fathers certainly had the forethought to not thrust it upon us in the Constitution...thankfully.

 

So am I still 'impossible'? Or do my statements actually make sense to you...This isn't a competition. In many ways, the 'gay marriage' debate is mostly about clearing up misconceptions and misunderstandings between people. Many people do not realize that logic and ethics can and do exist independently of religion-and it is my argument that being homosexual and getting married to a person of the same sex does not violate ethics and it is quite logical. I respect people's religious beliefs, but that does not mean that they should be thrust onto others, that's not how it works in this country, nor do I think it should work that way in any social system.

[Coty]

Please!  You are impossible.  I'm done with this debate as there is no point banging my head against the wall any longer.  You didn't even address the fact that you used the same definition that I used and still had the gall to ask if I made the definition up.

And by the way, our country was founded on Christian principles. shocking isn't it.

7059[/snapback]

 

 

Lol!!! Me too!!!

 

I keep saying I'm not going to come back into this serious discussion gay-marriage thread. Then I somehow click on it, while saying I will look, but not reply. Then I post something and it stays on my mind until the next night... But I think I'm out this time...

 

 

To the others:

 

You see, I believe homosexuality is a choice. I read all those links, and they just contradict themselves. You failed to prove that a person could be born gay. There is no point to marrying same-sex couples who choose to be that way in the first place. I will believe the Bible over a homosexual that says that homosexuality is not a choice, but that he was born that way, yet he can't prove it.

 

Theres just no way people who believe the Bible will accept homosexuality and accept same-sex marriage. If you're ever going to convince those people, you must start by proving that homosexuality is NOT a choice in the first place. Otherwise, your best bet is to convince everyone else, and hope you get enough people to believe you that you can change the law. There will be problems, but I think you will prevail in the long run, just before the destruction of this Country.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

RXS:

 

 

Maybe you are right, but if you read some of the articles on page you posted, he is clearly the poster child for resentment towards anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong in the Gay/Lesbian community. Obviously Gay/Lesbians don't like what he has to say...it almost smells of a smear campaign.

Who's smearing who? Many of the links on that page address the scientific value of his work, which seems dubious at least.

 

As was already pointed out to you, but you failed to address - from your definition:

"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law  (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage >b : the mutual relation of married persons"

(emphasis added)

 

Marriage is based on religious beliefs clear back to Adam and Eve.

Really? I always thought it dated back to the 12th century. Could you specify when Adam and Eve got married? (btw - are you saying there actually was a garden of Eden, with people wearing leaves and talking snakes and such?)

 

Also:

And by the way, our country was founded on Christian principles.

I believe that's another appeal to tradition. And what daybreak said.

 

As for the arguments on the Heritage Foundation page you linked to:

 

Regardless of religion, culture or constitutional tradition, societies have always agreed on the nature of marriage.

No. There are plenty of different forms around (see wikipedia article linked above)

 

There will be serious legal consequences and threats to religious liberty if marriage is redefined by the courts. There could also be long-term social consequences. Data is available from European countries that have already experimented with same-sex unions.

No. Civil servants objecting to taking part in this ceremony can refuse and have a colleague take over. The data they refer to is an interview in the Reformatorisch Dagblad (an obscure, extremely religious newspaper) that supports its argument by referring to demographic trends that had been going on for decades before gay marriage was legalised (a decline starting after a peak in 1970, having come from a low in 1960 - see graph on page 4 of this document). (I wonder why they reference this same article three times?)

 

“…making gay marriage a legal right will likely impose serious constraints on religious speech, assembly and worship; once gay marriage becomes the law, those who oppose it become outlaws.”– A. Picarello, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (click here to read the whole National Law Journal article.)

 

Foreign precedent seems to point in this direction:

 

Swedish Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to jail in June of 2004 for one month having been found guilty of offending homosexuals in a sermon under Sweden’s law against incitement.

 

In April of 2004 it became illegal to publicly express disapproval of homosexual behavior in Canada under an amendment to the hate propaganda laws.

 

In August of 2003 the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned that clergy who circulate a Vatican statement opposing gay marriage could face prosecution under Ireland’s incitement-to-hatred legislation

The laws against hate speech are still the same, they will not be changed along with the marriage laws. So what did Ake Green say, exactly? This:

 

In a sermon, Mr Green told a congregation on the small south-eastern island of Oland that homosexuals were "a deep cancer tumour on all of society". He warned that Sweden risked a natural disaster because of its tolerance of homosexuality. "Homosexuality is something sick," Mr Green said, comparing it to paedophilia and bestiality. He said gays were likely to storm children and animals.

 

I don't think this kind of free speech will be sorely missed. Also, the US has far less stringent hate speech laws, so it's not that relevant there.

 

Changes in Education

If homosexual relationships can be "marriages," homosexuality could be taught as a part of normal family structures.

Because they are. Since kids might actually have gay parents, this will probably help them, prevent situations described earlier in this thread.

 

Coty:

I read all those links, and they just contradict themselves.

Care to specify where? It's a relatively new field of research, so there's much still to do, but the findings so far clearly point in one direction...

 

just before the destruction of this Country.

You mean just like Holland, Belgium, Spain and Canada are currently falling to pieces? Could you explain how exactly gay people getting official recognition for what they're doing already destroys a country? How does that work exactly? (And why does Country have a capital C?)

[Genesis]

He said gays were likely to storm children and animals.

 

Please, someone, change the auto-censor and switch from "storm" to "r@pe", there's nothing wrong with this word so it's a bit ridiculous. Since when is it a swear word? Everybody knows what it refers to, I think. As someone said, "the word "dog" doesn't bite"...

 

So from now on, we should try to use "base-storming" in game-oriented discussions only, maybe.

 

BTW, great post Goo. And yes, this fear of destruction is a bit weird to me. To my mind, conservative behaviours, politicaly and religiously speaking, are more likely to destroy your country than gay civil unions, Coty. But well that's just my opinion.

[Caip]

You see, I believe homosexuality is a choice. I read all those links, and they just contradict themselves. You failed to prove that a person could be born gay. There is no point to marrying same-sex couples who choose to be that way in the first place. I will believe the Bible over a homosexual that says that homosexuality is not a choice, but that he was born that way, yet he can't prove it.

 

how is anyone supposed to prove a feeling?

and homosexuality is a feeling, isn't it?!

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

how is anyone supposed to prove a feeling?

 

Currently the most widely used method is to measure the bloodflow to the sexual organs while watching certain types of porn.

[daybreak]

You see, I believe homosexuality is a choice. I read all those links, and they just contradict themselves. You failed to prove that a person could be born gay. There is no point to marrying same-sex couples who choose to be that way in the first place.  I will believe the Bible over a homosexual that says that homosexuality is not a choice, but that he was born that way, yet he can't prove it. 

 

Theres just no way people who believe the Bible will accept homosexuality and accept same-sex marriage. If you're ever going to convince those people, you must start by proving that homosexuality is NOT a choice in the first place. Otherwise, your best bet is to convince everyone else, and hope you get enough people to believe you that you can change the law. There will be problems, but I think you will prevail in the long run, just before the destruction of this Country.

7114[/snapback]

 

I am getting really tired of the concept that homosexuality is a 'choice'. The 'act' or 'behavior' may be a choice...but whether or not someone is sexually and emotionally attracted to the same sex or not is NOT a choice. Let's hope that clarifies things a bit. There are religious leaders who do not debate that a person may be attracted to members of their own sex, for them, the sin part comes in with the behavior.

 

I want someone, anyone to answer this question...Did you choose to be straight?????

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuality is a choice-activists are only trying to prove that it is not a choice in order to defend themselves against moral supremacists. We must start viewing logic and ethics independent of religion!!! Just because the Bible says that something is wrong doesn't mean that it makes any sense! Here are some passages that have been floating around the internet for a while...

 

"Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

 

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?"

 

Can you make sense of any of these passages? Whether or not they were meant for modern day gentiles or Jews? Were they ever ethical or logical?

 

Lastly, if anyone wants to prove that being homosexual is unethical or illogical (regardless of religious beliefs), I'm ready to discuss that...

 

[Spacko]

Lastly, if anyone wants to prove that being homosexual is unethical or illogical (regardless of religious beliefs), I'm ready to discuss that...

7144[/snapback]

 

Nice try daybreak, but 1) I already tried that, 2) Especially RXS really already did that - not saying I agreed with him and 3) The conservatives have now "risen above" this debate (which in about 100% of all cases means are backing down with the poorest argument and trying not to lose face ). But needless to say you bring up a ton of great points.

 

The good news is that gay people will keep gaining acceptance and their rights no matter what, just because it's right. Boy am I glad the law does not take into account what people consider icky.

[Factor]

Gay Marriage WRONG!

 

end of story

[Spacko]

Suddenly it's all so clear... Of course it's wrong! Thanks sp@zz for helping me see the light.

[Factor]

lol, im sorry, but i just dont see what all this argueing is for...

 

Gay marriage is just wrong, and what daybreak said is sorta right though, its hard to come up with reasons outside of relgious ones...but i was thinkin, and this one isnt religious...

 

our private parts were made differently for certain reasons, and im sure it wasnt to be playing Star Wars with glow in the dark condoms with ur best friend...

 

males were made how they were, females how they were, so that we could mate...and you were given butts to keep ppl from getting SUPER FAT...not to have stuff shoved up...(i hope thats clean enough language for u bella)...cant think of another way to put it...