Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.

If you don't want religion, or citing scripture, or God as part of the answer, why did you ask this in the Christianity forum? Why didn't you post it under "issues and causes" or some other non-religous forum? Are you looking for responses from christians who don't rely on their faith?

I just don't see why the state should be forced to recognise such unions because where do you draw the line? If you allow people to have abnormal marriage unions and then force the state to recognise it, then if someone wants to marry their Dog or horse, on what basis could you refuse? That means the state should also accept that marriage as valid to make "fair".

There is a difference between two HUMAN consenting adults marrying and a person marrying an animal. That's really a ridiculous comparison. That is my opinion.

I honestly find no reason why ANY two ADULTS shouldn't be able to marry. Like one of my favorite quotes say, "If you allow one minority (homosexuals) to be discriminated against, you open the door for ALL minorities to be discriminated against".

Now I am not saying that homosexuals are a minority, I am drawing a comparison. If we don't allow two people of the same sex to marry, why let people of different races marry?

There is a difference between two HUMAN consenting adults marrying and a person marrying an animal. That's really a ridiculous comparison. That is my opinion.

I honestly find no reason why ANY two ADULTS shouldn't be able to marry. Like one of my favorite quotes say, "If you allow one minority (homosexuals) to be discriminated against, you open the door for ALL minorities to be discriminated against".

Now I am not saying that homosexuals are a minority, I am drawing a comparison. If we don't allow two people of the same sex to marry, why let people of different races marry?

It is not ridiculous.. because if some human with rights want to marry an animal on what basis should we stop them if the lines on what defines marriage are so blurred. That human wanting to marry a do can also argue that they have right and the they are a minority too.

So if we allow the definition of marriage to be changed from one man and one woman, then we have no right to set bounderies on anyone else who want to marry anything else like animals, kids, pets etc. The state would also have to accept those marriages in the name of "fairness" right?

Yes, it IS r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. You are comparing one human with rights marrying a creature with no ability to speak for itself to two consenting human beings. That's ridiculous.

Wrong. Those marriages are wrong for one simple reason, the other party cannot consent.

Where in the name of Pete are you getting the idea that people would want to marry an animal, anyway? I'd like to hear of TEN WHOLE PEOPLE in the US that want THAT to happen.

The thing is--allowing something to happen between two consenting adults; and please--focus on those last two words: Consenting meaning "giving permission" and adults meaning "over 18" (so in other words, NOT CHILDREN), isn't giving blanket permission for the rest of what you're predicting to happen. That's like saying because Christian priests have been molesting small children for decades that EVERY religion is allowing their priesthood to molest small children. Or, for instance, that because a black man may become president, the next thing you know it will be women, and then homosexuals, and then *gasp* non-Christians!

Where in the name of Pete are you getting the idea that people would want to marry an animal, anyway? Hello Synn:

Rush Limprod. And, Bill O'Reilly too. THEY know! So, there.

excon

Where in the name of Pete are you getting the idea that people would want to marry an animal, anyway? I'd like to hear of TEN WHOLE PEOPLE in the US that want THAT to happen.

The thing is--allowing something to happen between two consenting adults; and please--focus on those last two words: Consenting meaning "giving permission" and adults meaning "over 18" (so in other words, NOT CHILDREN), isn't giving blanket permission for the rest of what you're predicting to happen. That's like saying because Christian priests have been molesting small children for decades that EVERY religion is allowing their priesthood to molest small children. Or, for instance, that because a black man may become president, the next thing you know it will be women, and then homosexuals, and then *gasp* non-Christians!!


I think you are miss understanding what I am saying. I am not saying that is what is going to happen, I am just saying if the definition of marriage is not defined and becomes blurred anyone could also argue their case to allow other abnormal unions.

Defined as what? Elitist? Religious? Not everyone (straight or gay) that wants to marry is religious. There can still be a definition of marriage, I personally just think that it needs to include every PERSON who wants to marry another PERSON.

Abnormal is really an opinion, and in some case just a person being brain-washed. Not saying you, but I'm not saying you. Just people.

I see no reason why Homosexuals can not get married. I see what sassy is trying to say but an animal can not say yes I want to marry this person so that might not be the best argument. And the entire religious aspect of it I just throw out the window. Cause if marriage actually meant what it used to mean we wouldn't have such a high divorce rate. IF two guys or two girls want to marry each other I'm all for it.

Well, too late on the animal argument some man already petitioned the courts to allow him to marry his dog... not sure of what happened... but yea it has already happened. Don't doubt me because I may not know about gay marriages but I do know about dogs.
Btw I don't think it is gay peoples fault that this wacko wanted to marry his dog.

Hello Synn:

Rush Limprod. And, Bill O'Reilly too. THEY know! So, there.

excon


Hello Ex,

Those people are idiots who can't find their rear ends with two hands and a flashlight. They probably think someone wants to marry THEM too.

Love,

Synn

I don't have a problem with a man wanting to marry another man or a man wanting to marry their pet hamster, we all free to do what we want, however I just don't see why the State should be forced to recognise such unions as valid.

Because people are people. You shouldn't discriminate one group because of their sexuality. Nor should you limit their rights.

Well, I posted this out of curiousity, to see what other arguments were most common, besides the religious ones I've heard so often. I wanted to hear from Christians, who are often, in my experience, adamantly anti-homosexuality and anti-gay rights... and see if there was any basis for their dislike of homosexuality outside of their religious views.

The only one which has been raised so far is the 'slippery slope' argument- which has been successfully rebutted here as well.

Are there other reasons aside from your religious beliefs? If not, then why are so many against gay marriage, particularly Christians? If it is against your religion, then don't allow homosexuals to marry in your church. And don't marry someone of the same sex. But why cause hardship for others who don't share those same specific RELIGIOUS morals? Why should the religious beliefs of one group be forced upon those who don't share those religious beliefs? This is what I have such difficulty grasping... when and how did it become okay in peoples' minds to cross that line?

I dont have a problem with a man wanting to marry another man or a man wanting to marry thier pet hamster, we all free to do what we want, however I just dont see why the State should be forced to recognise such unions as valid.

I don't care whether the CHURCH recognizes those unions as valid, but I do care that the state recognize them and here's why: There are rights and privileges that are associated with heterosexual marriages--such as inheritance laws, child custody, medical information/care, visitation for incarcerated people, etc. I basically feel that if ALL people can't have those rights/privileges, then NONE of us should have them just from "getting married".

By all means, let's give the lawyers more work by making it impossible for marriage to bestow those rights and privileges and make EVERYONE have to have legal documents that cover EACH of the situations that right now are covered simply by getting married.

I dont have a problem with a man wanting to marry another man or a man wanting to marry thier pet hamster, we all free to do what we want, however I just dont see why the State should be forced to recognise such unions as valid.

Because the reason gay people want marriage is for legal protection- and without state and federal recognition of marriage, then nothing is accomplished. Gay people who are raising children, buying homes together, supporting one another... they want the same protection as a committed couple that would be afforded to a straight committed couple through the institution of marriage.

Bravo Bravo you two! I would have to agree with everything said!

I recognize all life as valid. The state "recognizing marriage as valid" is contrived. The grass grows. Humans love one another. Humans are not naturally monogamous. What a shame that Humans have laws written to "protect" when they could be loving and honest towards one another.

I recognize all life as valid. The state "recognizing marriage as valid" is contrived. The grass grows. Humans love one another. Humans are not naturally monogamous. What a shame that Humans have laws written to "protect" when they could be loving and honest towards one another.

Monogamy is not for everyone, but it is for some (reflected in both humanity and animals, there are variances as to whether 'couples' mate for life, or whether they have multiple partners throughout their lives)-- but if some choose to be with one person for the rest of their lives, and commit to that person... they should, of course, be free to do so. If a man and a woman who choose to make this commitment then receive additional legal protections upon doing so, so should a man and another man who make this commitment, and so should a woman and another woman.

And yes, while it is a shame that the world we live in today requires us to construct laws for our own protection, the truth is that this is how it is. While we can wish that things were different, that people would treat each other with respect, fairness, and love without the need for laws instructing them to do so, that is not our reality. And sadly, I doubt it ever will be. We need to act appropriately within the system we are in. We need to operate within reality and make the necessary changes to bring us closer to where we should be- while it's nice to envision the ideal, we also need to work with what we've got.

To the question:

1. About 6,000 years of human culture have defined marriage as between man and woman. (sometimes several women) Never between man & man or woman & woman. There are some things to be said for precedent.

2. Two people of the same sex are obviously never going to produce a child. What do you think your genetalia are for?

3. If too many people opted for same sex unions, there would be no children to adopt, and we would have a de-facto genocide of the human race. Artificial insemenation is way too expensive for most people.

Three reasons.

1. Sometimes things need to change.

2. Have you ever heard of artificial insimination? There are many options for same sex couples to have children.

3. No, there will always be teen mothers, crack heads, and people just aren't ready for children... There will always be reasons for orphans.

To the question:

1. About 6,000 years of human culture have defined marriage as between man and woman. (sometimes several women) Never between man & man or woman & woman. There are some things to be said for precedent.

2. Two people of the same sex are obviously never going to produce a child. What do you think your genetalia are for?

3. If too many people opted for same sex unions, ther would be no children to adopt, and we would have a de-facto genocide of the human race. Artificial insemenation is way too expensive for most people.

Three reasons.


1. You state that a precedent has been set by history. However, other precedents exist which we have felt the need to change as we grew and evolved and better understood ourselves and humanity as a whole. Slavery has existed in the world since Old Testament times. Slavery existed in the United States from 1619 to 1808- close to 200 years. Female infanticide has existed in numerous countries throughout the world and is documented since as early as the beginning of the common era. Interracial marriage was illegal in the United States until 1967.

Precedents don't necessarily equate with the right-ness of an action, belief, or practice.

2. Child production is not necessarily the focus of marriage anymore anyway. When we lived in an agricultural society, children were an asset as extra help working the land... now, children are a liability. Additionally, we are suffering the consequences of overpopulation- The global economy has increased 15-fold since 1950 and this 'progress' has begun to affect the planet and how it functions. For example, the increase in CO2 is 100 PPM and growing. And during the 1990's, the average area of tropical forest cleared each year was equivalent to half the area of England. Perhaps less of a focus on increasing our population is what we need... The population of the world is currently 6,602,224,175. Work with the generally accepted assumption that approx. 10% of the population is gay- say those 10% of the population (660,222,417 people) paired off in heterosexual couples and had the average two kids per couple- that would add over HALF A BILLION people to an already over populated world.

3. In the US alone there are 120,000 children in need of adoption at any given time. Some estmates put the number of orphans in the world at 50 million, others as high as 200 million. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they could be put into loving homes with married parents, straight or gay, who could care for them and give them the kind of life they deserve?

I would like to ask you to clarify what you feel would cause there to be an increase in the homosexual population? You stated a concern of 'too many people opting for same sex unions', as though there is a worry that those who are straight will become gay for a reason you failed to explain... resulting in humanity dying off due to refusal to procreate. Please go into that in more depth for me, as I'm curious what your line of logic could be in anticipating a surge in homosexuality if they are on equal par with straights in regard to the ability to obtain rights and legal protections.

And even if somehow this could be the case, it seems much more likely for humanity to die off due to the consequences of overpopulation long before we ever see even the slightest negative impacts upon our numbers due to an increase in the homosexual population.

By the way, Galveston1, I do appreciate your input and response to my question.

Although I disagree with your arguments, I appreciate your response to my question and look forward to discussing this with you further.

First I will reply that your post is pure bull, since no one can leave morality out of a concern. Morality is the base of most law, and Morality is based on normally some religious values.

Also at fault is the issue, that no matter how wrong and bad homosexuality is, that is one separate issue. But allowing them to have a legal contract equal to marriage, is a separate issue.

From the morality side, their sexual actions is the issue and problem. If you want to call it marriage, that does not change the act. With or without any legal contract that the state provides.

And in the US, what the state issues and calls a marriage license is merely a government controlled contract on the union of two people.
From the legal side, the state has the right, according to the will of the majority of the people to pass those laws that control such unions. But to date I am not sure any state has actually passed such laws, but have had those laws forced on them by courts writing laws, ( which is in itself a violation of constitution powers of the court)

The right of the state to pass marriage laws is their rights, there is no Federal Government provision to even allow the Federal government to act or interfere with the right of the state in those issues.

So should they have the ability ( there is no right, not even for men/women) the laws on marriage is not a right, but merely a law provided by the government. So should they have the ability to marry, yes if their state has the issue on a ballot or if their elected offiicals passes such a law, but only in those cases.

Now is homosexual behavior wrong, yes, since it goes against the current normal morals of soceity, which is the controlling factor of any society.

I will also challenge the intent of your post, since you posted it in the religioius discussion, not in another discussion area. So by posting it in a religious area and then saying to not refer to religion, it is a obvoiuis bait issue for religious people reply to you

This is getting interesting, I am intrigued to see where this goes next.

Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.
The question is named : "Why is Homosexuality Wrong?".
The answer to that : it is not "wrong". And what means "wrong" in this particular context ?
The problem with homosexuality (HS) is : many people have an instinctive aversion against it, and that feeling is supported by several religions, and Christianity (the religion most of us in the west encounter on a daily basis) is one of them.

Just because that resentment by quite a big group of people, our human freedom to do what pleases us (as long as that is done within the confines of the golden Rule) requires legal State confirmation and protection.

And there is the problem... These religious groups (mis)use or try to (mis)use their political influence to enforce their own smallminded views on HS and other freedoms.

HS is not "wrong" from a moral point of view. There are no moral or ethical considerations against HS. But I have to admit : when I see a boy and a girl kissing each other I feel something like mollification. But with two men kissing each other it is more something of "I do not want/need to see that". Strange than when two women are kissing each other in my case that hardly ever results in that same reserved feeling...

But that does not support all these violent attacks on HS, and why people are so against homo marriages. From me they may marry and live a long and happy life together. I have no problem looking another way, for a couple of seconds...

:D

First I will reply that your post is pure bull, since no one can leave morality out of a concern. Morality is the base of most law, and Morality is based on normally some religous values.

Wow, Fr. Chuck... why is my post 'pure bull'? I'm trying to understand if there is a logical, well-reasoned argument against homosexuality that does not involve religion. I'm not asking morality to be left out of the equation, I'm asking for specific religious doctrines and beliefs to be left out. It's like... asking a Hindu why it's bad to eat beef, and asking them to provide other reasons aside from their religious beliefs... like the impact on our health, impact on the environment from raising cattle for food, etc. I'm not saying to leave morality out of the question- I'm asking for other well grounded arguments that don't involve a religion that I don't adhere to, because those arguments #1. don't apply to me as a non-believer, and #2. shouldn't impact the laws that apply to me unless I live in a theocracy. If it's 'pure bull' to ask a question and intend to have a discussion, then this site may as well be shut down...


Also at fault is the issue, that no matter how wrong and bad homosexuality is, that is one seperate issue. but allowing them to have a legal contract equal to marriage, is a seperate issue. [.QUOTE]

But you can't separate the two issues- the reason why homosexuals are not permitted to marry one another is because of the belief held by many that there is something intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. There is no fault with the issue- and I think I explained in a previous post why I posed the question I did- if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality aside from religious beliefs surrounding the issue, then there is nothing wrong with granting them equal access to a social institution which offers them the same rights given to straight couples. If people saw homosexuals as equals, fully human and fully deserving of legal protection in their relationships, we wouldn't even have this question of whether or not two men or two women can marry- it would be a given. But because that perception exists, it carries over into a clear deprivation of rights which are allowed to straight couples, but not to gay couples.

[QUOTE=Fr_Chuck]From the morality side, thier sexual actions is the issue and problem. If you want to call it marriage, that does not change the act. with or without any legal contract that the state provides.

And you don't answer my question here. You stated that their sexual actions are an 'issue' and a 'problem' but fail to explain why that is. Why should I, as a non-Christian and non-religious person, believe that homosexuality is a 'problem'? I am not immoral, but my morality is not based on biblical texts or church doctrines or teachings... That is the question I am asking. Try to explain why, outside of your personal religious convictions, there is something wrong with homosexuality. And if you cannot do so, then why not permit homosexuals to marry?


Now is homosexual behavior wrong, yes, since it goes against the current normal morals of soceity, which is the controling factor of any society.

Okay, so the current norms of society is what defines right and wrong? And everything is relative to what is or is not accepted in society at the time? I'm shocked that you are such a relativist, Fr. Chuck! Because in society today, there are many things that have become normative (use of contraception, sex appeal being used to promote and sell products, pre-marital sex, just to name a few) which I'm sure aren't necessarily in line with what you would accept as 'right' just because it is the current 'norm'. Do you accept everything that is a 'norm' of society to be right? Or only specific things? If only specific things, then there must be some OTHER criteria by which you judge these things- which leads me to believe that you are applying a double standard to the issue of homosexuality.

You can't say:
Homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the current social norms within our society.
But issue 'X' is wrong because of reason x, y, z, and it should not be tolerated, even though it is currently an accepted social norm within our society.

If social norms can be disregarded in one instance as insufficient evidence for the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an issue or action, then it can't be used as justification of the inherent 'wrongness' of another- it just doesn't logically make sense.

I will also challenge the intent of your post, since you posted it in the religioius discussion, not in another discussion area. so by posting it in a religious area and then saying to not refer to religion, it is a obvoiuis bait issue for religious people reply to you

It's not 'bait' for religious people to reply to me. I WANT to discuss this with religious people to understand their other reasoning, aside from their religion, as to why homosexuality is so 'wrong'. And explain my perspective to them. See where they're coming from, show them where I'm coming from as a gay woman. And maybe open up some dialogue between myself and those who think differently from me.

Religious people, particularly Christians from my experience, are opposed to homosexuality- and those are the people I wanted to discuss this with. It's pointless to post something like this in a forum where everyone agrees, don't you think? I enjoy discussion, a good debate, and discussing opposing viewpoints to try to find some common ground.

I've not been disrespectful in any of my responses to anyone, I've not argued with personal insults or attacks, nor have I said that religious beliefs are 'wrong'- I put a question out there to open up discussion and I presented my views intelligently and politely. What could you possibly challenge about that?

The question is named : "Why is Homosexuality Wrong?".
The answer to that : it is not "wrong". And what means "wrong" in this particular context ?
The problem with homosexuality (HS) is : many people have an instinctive aversion against it, and that feeling is supported by several religions, and Christianity (the religion most of us in the west encounter on a daily basis) is one of them.

I agree with you 100% that homosexuality is not 'wrong'- I put this question out with that title to try to elicit responses from both those who think it is wrong, and those who don't... a question like that typically can generate pretty animated responses from both sides, which is what I was looking for.

As far as what I mean by 'wrong', I want to know how it is damaging to society, to the people involved, to humanity as a whole. If if isn't, and if no one can provide arguments as to why it is, then I progress to the point of why gay people cannot have equal access to marriage- if it is based on purely religious convictions, then these convictions should have no place in dictating the lives of the non-religious. This is my point, but I'm looking to discuss this and see where others are coming from and what they have to say.


Just because that resentment by quite a big group of people, our human freedom to do what pleases us (as long as that is done within the confines of the golden Rule) requires legal State confirmation and protection.

And there is the problem ... These religious groups (mis)use or try to (mis)use their political influence to enforce their own smallminded views on HS and other freedoms.

I agree.


HS is not "wrong" from a moral point of view. There are no moral or ethical considerations against HS. But I have to admit : when I see a boy and a girl kissing each other I feel something like mollification. But with two men kissing each other it is more something of "I do not want/need to see that". Strange than when two women are kissing each other in my case that hardly ever results in that same reserved feeling ...

I think this is probably a result of socialization- gay men are typically presented as effeminate, and it causes straight men, who have been raised in a society that encourages them to take pride in their masculinity, to feel uncomfortable. Lesbians, on the other hand, have been sexualized and presented in recent years as a sort of 'entertainment' for straight men- additionally, two women kissing is not a threat to masculinity whereas two gay men kissing can be perceived in that way. And I suppose that this could make even a straight woman, or maybe even a gay woman slightly uncomfortable, because it does challenge our typical perception of 'masculine man with passive woman'- it throws us out of our comfort zone, out of what we typically expect, and causes us to reconsider the gender stereotypes we have always known.


But that does not support all these violent attacks on HS, and why people are so against homo marriages. From me they may marry and live a long and happy life together. I have no problem looking another way, for a couple of seconds

And that's a step a lot of people won't take... and I appreciate you're honesty regarding your emotional response to seeing gay couples together, as well as your ability to recognize that an emotional response based on socialization should not result in preventing these couples from obtaining equal legal standing to straight couples-

Basically... you kick butt. ;)

I have always found it somewhat amusing that women's sexuality is in now way threatened by a lesbian--seriously, getting a compliment from a lesbian is a pretty high compliment, and it's extremely flattering, because she's looking at you from 2 perspectives. Yet if a gay man were to compliment another man (especially on his appearance!) then the straight man would feel threatened, icked out, whatever--instead of realizing that they're not all that, and not every gay guy wants to sleep with them.

As far as the argument someone made above that sexual organs are for procreation--well, I'd just like to say that I hope you NEVER have sex when you're not actively trying to have a kid, then, because that's all that sexual organs are for with that mindset.

Basically... you kick butt. ;)
LOL... Now I only have to decide who's butt I am going to kick...

:D

It's not 'bait' for religious people to reply to me. I WANT to discuss this with religious people to understand their other reasoning, aside from their religion, as to why homosexuality is so 'wrong'. And explain my perspective to them. See where they're coming from, show them where I'm coming from as a gay woman. And maybe open up some dialogue between myself and those who think differently from me.

Religious people, particularly Christians from my experience, are opposed to homosexuality- and those are the people I wanted to discuss this with. It's pointless to post something like this in a forum where everyone agrees, don't you think? I enjoy discussion, a good debate, and discussing opposing viewpoints to try to find some common ground.

I've not been disrespectful in any of my responses to anyone, I've not argued with personal insults or attacks, nor have I said that religious beliefs are 'wrong'- I put a question out there to open up discussion and I presented my views intelligently and politely. What could you possibly challenge about that?


It is like saying explain why is stealing wrong or why is murder wrong without using any moral values. Since without values nothing is really wrong.

That's an easy one, padre- murder is wrong and stealing is wrong because of the negative impact it has upon other people and upon society as a whole. You are intentionally causing harm to another person and treating them in a way you would not wish to be treated. Further, you are disregarding their dignity as human beings by treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. Other arguments could be brought up, but those are two good measurements of the rightness or wrongness of an action- without involving religious beliefs.

Religion is not necessary for moral values. As I said, I'm not asking morals to be left out of the question- I'm asking that specific religious beliefs, and the morals held only by the adherants of a particular religion, be left out of the conversation.

I am not religious, nor do I adhere to any specific religious doctrine, but I have an understanding of 'right' and 'wrong'. I am not an immoral person, and I can evaluate situations, issues, and moral questions without bringing religion into the equation.

Are you implying that those who are not religious are unable to have morals?

But to me and many others homosexual behavior is a negative impact upon others and upon society as a whole, And their personal dignity would be the same, it is their actions that are wrong just as in the other actions against moral values.

But the issues are that moral beleifs are based upon religion, even the majority of the basic laws are also based upon religion.

This is the fundalmental issue, for many of us we see society being driven down to immoral levels by homosexual activies and other perverted ideas of society.

And yes, it is obvoius that by accepting some values as a benefit to society, there is a problem in the level of moral values that will accept this as a value.

But to me and many others homosexual behavior is a negitive impact upon others and upon society as a whole, And thier personal dignity would be the same, it is thier actions that are wrong just as in the other actions against moral values.

But why? What are the negative impacts that homosexuality has upon others and upon society as a whole? And how does a woman loving a woman or a man loving a man romantically jeopordize their dignity as a human being? You can't just make a statement like that without backing up exactly what it is you mean...

But the issues are that moral beleifs are based upon religion, even the majority of the basic laws are also based upon religion.

Not necessarily- you can't really prove which ones came first, can you? I tend to think (but don't have the time to do the research on it now- if you request it though, I'll do it over the next day or two to see if this is an accurate understanding or not) that the morals upheld by religions are often shaped by the societal values which were in place at the time the religion was forming- maybe by the majority, maybe by the minority who were involved in the roots of the religion... some religions/sects of Christianity have modified their teachings/beliefs over time to adjust to the society they exist in- and others have held on to doctrines and beliefs that existed since the inception of their religion... I wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority of morals are based on religion- I think that there's a continuous exchange between secular society and religion that shapes and molds the beliefs and practices of the religious-

This is the fundalmental issue, for many of us we see society being driven down to immoral levels by homosexual activies and other perverted ideas of society.

Again, please go deeper than this- what 'immoral levels' is society being driven down to by homosexual activities- what are the problems you think are caused by gay people?

And yes, it is obvoius that by accepting some values as a benifit to society, there is a problem in the level of moral values that will accept this as a value.

I really don't understand what you mean by this... please restate this sentence, it's too unclear for me to respond to.

Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.

Odd that this is in a "religious" thread, as mentioned by others, but that little oddity notwithstanding:

1] "wrong" implies that there is a "right" which means morality. If you leave religious standards out of it, or any standards for that matter, then morality is an individual choice.
There is no right or wrong, only what matters to me. :) Let us say, my standard and morality is that homosexuality is wrong. No one else's standard or morality matters because there are no standards to begin with. If you try to impose your "there is nothing wrong with homosexuality" standard on me, according to my standards that is wrong. :D Just as wrong as you think that someone imposing there "homosexuality is wrong" standard on you is wrong.




2. Child production is not necessarily the focus of marriage anymore anyway. When we lived in an agricultural society, children were an asset as extra help working the land... now, children are a liability. Additionally, we are suffering the consequences of overpopulation- The global economy has increased 15-fold since 1950 and this 'progress' has begun to affect the planet and how it functions. For example, the increase in CO2 is 100 PPM and growing. And during the 1990's, the average area of tropical forest cleared each year was equivalent to half the area of England. Perhaps less of a focus on increasing our population is what we need... The population of the world is currently 6,602,224,175. Work with the generally accepted assumption that approx. 10% of the population is gay- say those 10% of the population (660,222,417 people) paired off in heterosexual couples and had the average two kids per couple- that would add over HALF A BILLION people to an already over populated world.



Got off on an irrelevant soapbox, save the world, global warming, humanity is bad, Ehrlichian/Malthusian, tangent there, did you?

Okay, I'll roll with you. Let us say that some virus with a 90% kill rate and a 90% transmission rate, or a nuclear calamity occurred, either one, wiping out 90% of the worlds population. Don't you think that the odds of human survival would be better starting with 6 or even 12 [ :eek: ] billion people rather than 3 billion. Oh, I forgot, the anti- humanity save the earth types want humanity eliminated :) just not themselves, start with the other guy.

And what way to restart the human race, but with heterosexuals!




3. In the US alone there are 120,000 children in need of adoption at any given time. Some estmates put the number of orphans in the world at 50 million, others as high as 200 million. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they could be put into loving homes with married parents, straight or gay, who could care for them and give them the kind of life they deserve?

Oh, now your concerned about the worlds, excess population. Sticking with the whole ehrlichian train of thought, just have more abortions, sterilizations, euthanasia - that would beesier and better for the planet, rather than trying to find "loving" homes for them. ---sarcasm intended ;)




2] There are other threads as to the whole gay marriage thing.
The argument that interracial heterosexual marriage is the equivalent is so biologically insane, its funny. The polygamists have a better case.

3] Impact:

Plus = fashion, arts, entertainment, variety. More women for us straight guys, unless that is offset by more lesbians, but just as long as they are good looking. ;)



sad = Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men | Resources | HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm)


Negatives = there are none, I love you all!

to rephrase, if people are accepting immoral activities are moral, they have lost their ability to understand and see morality fully, So while they have some morals, they do lack a full moral value.

Their actions confuse society by trying to force it to accept activities that are not correct. It effects society by forcing their values upon the public. It effects society by forcing their legal beleifs ( not rights) upon the public though court action when not accepted by the public.

There is no defense in the activity and actions of the lifestyle, that would ever be acceptable to a fully moral person based upon basic religious values of most faiths, not merely christian. I could not more believe that homoseuxal life style is acceptable as I would the life style of the child molester, like the 30 year old and the 12 year old we get on here from times, your defense could be used for them , society slowly starts down a slope of self destruction when allowed to live and act on their own lusts.

inthebox

Just wanted to say I don't have time to respond to you tonight--- some of the points you raised I already addressed- others I will get to either tomorrow or Friday when I get back on here.

Have a good night!

Men have penises,
Women have Vaginas.
1 + 1 = 2
Penises fit into vaginas.
Male and Female organs are for reproduction.
Male and Male has no purpose.
Female and Female has no purpose.
Survival of the fittest. There is no survival with homosexuality and that is why it is unnatural.

Penises and Vaginas fits together like a GLOVE.

EDIT:::::::

Marriage is an institution that was created for a man and a women to come together and create children together and create a family. Marriage has always been about a man and women coming together. Marriage is about becoming one and literally joining together as one. That can not be done with homosexuals.

See the problem here with communication is that religion EQUALS morals for some people.

I would hazard a guess that the 10 Commandments are the top ten rules in EVERY RELIGION in the world. Or close to it. So... they're common sense rules, to me. Don't hurt other people. Take a day to rest here and there. Honor your ancestors and elders, and make time for your god. Sounds like a pretty balanced life there, and it's not even solely a Christian idea!

I really believe that morality, in general, is common sense. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, and I like to do it--well, why shouldn't I? It's not hurting anyone!

The question it keeps coming back to, for me, is what or who exactly is homosexuality hurting? Really, truly hurting? I'm not talking about it turning you off, or making you feel ill or whatever--who is it HURTING?

Similar argument with gay marriage--who is it HURTING? If you tell me that it ruins the sanctity and the idea of marriage for heterosexuals, I'm going to laugh at you. Heterosexuals NOT getting married and living together, or having children out of wedlock, and the HUGE divorce rate did more to ruin the "sanctity" of marriage than anything the gays could do.

And again--if sex organs are ONLY for procreation, and not pleasure--well, I really hope you are trying for kids on a regular basis.

inthebox

just wanted to say I don't have time to respond to you tonight--- some of the points you raised I already addressed- others I will get to either tomorrow or Friday when I get back on here.

Have a good night!


You too, got to catch the end of "So you think you can dance" ;)

Practise makes perfect. Having pleasure while trying to create.

See the problem here with communication is that religion EQUALS morals for some people.
Yes, for some people it seem to be that way. But has that claim any validity for people outside that group?
The problem with all these religious views is that their (possible) validity is based on unsupported wild claims, and that those who think that way seem to assume that these views are valid also for all of those of other pursuation.

When people select morals for themselves... fine with me !
But what morality is there in trying to enforce unsupported religious claims unto others?

Nobody is forcing or trying to force those "some persons" into homosexual practices.
So why are these "some persons" such noseyparkers who insist to interfere with other people's lives and freedoms ?

If only these "some persons" were "without sin"... Specially as it is them who long ago already started throwing stones...

:rolleyes:

So basically, Margog, you're trying to figure out what makes religious people tick without their religion?

Well, speaking for myself as a dedicated Christian, it's a way of life for me since our grand creator set out guidelines for us all through His Word and hopes that we follow them. If not, then that's our choice and we reap the consequences. If I put my beliefs aside I put the Almighty aside and choose to go it alone. Who or what gets hurt if I accept homosexuals etc? GOD. Just like you would be hurt if you repeatedly told your child not to do something and they turned around and did it anyway. Many don't feel that such a being exists, and that is their choice, but MY choice is to dedicate my whole life as in thoughts, actions and words to trying to please God.

Sorry, but I see it as impossible to give you an answer to your question without seeing it from God's point of view.

To me it's about lust and is unhealthy.

If we should accept this kind of behaviour, why then does society as a whole not accept fathers marrying daughters or mothers marrying sons? I mean, some have been known to fall madly in love. Must they be denied these feelings?

... it's a way of life for me since our grand creator set out guidelines for us all thru His Word ...
"For us all"? ----> As this implies that your religious views and the consequences of these views in this wording does not only involve yourself, but includes every human being now , it becomes time to demand from you objective supported evidence for :

- the existence of "god/gods".
- the supposed supranatural powers of that "god/gods".
- the claim that the bible is the word of (one of these) "gods".

If all you can do is believe in your religious claims, no problem, no problem at all !
But than do not try to shift your religious beliefs unrequested onto others. Without that requested evidence your words as quoted are just empty religious claims, and are for others than yourself without any value or consequence.

Note that JC is claimed to have asked every Christian to "Go forth and spread the word"
JC never was claimed to have asked to "Go forth and force the christian word upon every human being".

Your religious claims have no hold for other people. They are no guidelines "for us all". They are guidelines for all christians. Many years of inquisition tried to do the same, but failed.

And I note that even christian people seem unable to keep to these guidelines, so why you don't start with yourself and your own and to start displaying how people should live, and show others the way by example?

Your "grand creator" did not set out guidelines "for us all" through His Word. That is what you BELIEVE ...


:rolleyes:

Practise makes perfect. Having pleasure while trying to create.


Then you ONLY have sex when you're trying to create, right? No birth control, EVER. No oral sex that leads to culmination. Absolutely no anal sex.

Marriage is two people in love sharing a life together. I don't care what the gender of those two people are. Let GOD sort that out, if that's your thing--Are YOU God, to determine what's right and what isn't? And again--IF the Bible says that homosexuality IS wrong--the Bible also says that birth control is wrong, and incest is okay (Lot and his daughters), and St. Paul has a TON of stuff in there about how women should be subjugated and never equal to men.

At one point, the Bible was used to justify slavery--the story of Noah getting drunk and one of his sons laughing at him. Amazing how THAT has changed, though.

See the problem here with communication is that religion EQUALS morals for some people.

I would hazard a guess that the 10 Commandments are the top ten rules in EVERY RELIGION in the world. Or close to it. So....they're common sense rules, to me. Don't hurt other people. Take a day to rest here and there. Honor your ancestors and elders, and make time for your god. Sounds like a pretty balanced life there, and it's not even solely a Christian idea!

I really believe that morality, in general, is common sense. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, and I like to do it--well, why shouldn't I? It's not hurting anyone! .

Well said Syn. If its not hurting anyone why do we care?


The question it keeps coming back to, for me, is what or who exactly is homosexuality hurting? Really, truly hurting? I'm not talking about it turning you off, or making you feel ill or whatever--who is it HURTING?

Similar argument with gay marriage--who is it HURTING? If you tell me that it ruins the sanctity and the idea of marriage for heterosexuals, i'm going to laugh at you. Heterosexuals NOT getting married and living together, or having children out of wedlock, and the HUGE divorce rate did more to ruin the "sanctity" of marriage than anything the gays could do. .

I believe that those that hide behind the "sanctity" of marriage are grossly uninformed. There is so much more to a marriage then sex and like Syn said heterosexuals are doing an outstanding job ruining that sanctity all alone. Honestly, how can we condem if 2 people who love each other and want to build a life together? My aunt is a gay woman with a wonderful girlfriend. They attend church every week, give to that church every week, and yet they cannot be married in that church. THAT KILLS ME! The church says hey your money is good enough for us, but you are not. I hate that... it leaves a sour taste in my mouth every time I think about it.


And again--if sex organs are ONLY for procreation, and not pleasure--well, I really hope ya'll are trying for kids on a regular basis.


Right on Syn! Finally a voice of reason! Perfect ending to a wonderful post.

I would also like to add that the bible is a piece of literary work open to interpretation. How you interpret the bible might not be how I interpret the bible. Often when I sit in church and the Father is giving his homily I think- wow I did not get that out of what the gospel says... I got this. Does that make his interpretation wrong? No... Does it make mine wrong? No. But we need to learn all coexist and get along. Gay or straight we are all human... why all the hate...

Also, to all of you in a heterosexual marriage... can you imagine if your wife/husband was critically hurt and you were told that you could not see them or make decisions on their health. Could you imagine being powerless as the one you love lay in a hospital bed? Homosexuals are looking for equal rights... just like African Americans did in the 60's. Everyone deserves to be treated equally... no I know that it does not happen, but that is what people deserve.

"Love is an emotional rollercoaster and when we fall in love with someone it does not matter where they came from or what they are." Gays/Lesbians are people who just happen to love one another the same as hetrosexuals do.
AND IT HAS CERTAINLY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANIMALS - OR HAS IT? YES That's RIGHT WE AS HUMANS ARE ANIMALS TOO.

"Love is an emotional rollercoaster and when we fall in love with someone it does not matter where they came from or what they are." Gays/Lesbians are people who just happen to love one another the same as hetrosexuals do..


Well said Poppysue... why do we care who or how other people love? We should just be happy that people are finding others to love. It's a long lonely world without the love of another person.

I know I said I would respond today, but my time is limited at the moment- I will try to add more later, but a lot of what I wanted to say has already been said by others.

I just want to interject one thought at this point- homosexuality is not about LUST anymore than heterosexuality is about LUST. Heterosexuals tend to focus on the act of sex because that is what makes them most uncomfortable about homosexuality. But the 'homosexual lifestyle' is really not much different from the 'heterosexual lifestyle', aside from who we choose to share our lives with. My partner and I are not constantly having sex, and sex is not the focal point of our relationship. When I see a straight couple together, I don't automatically think of their sex life, and it frustrates me to no end to know that when I am seen with my partner that is often where the thoughts of other people immediately go.

Just something I wanted to put out there for now...

I don't care whether or not the CHURCH recognizes those unions as valid, but I do care that the state recognize them and here's why: There are rights and privileges that are associated with heterosexual marriages--such as inheritance laws, child custody, medical information/care, visitation for incarcerated people, etc. I basically feel that if ALL people can't have those rights/privileges, then NONE of us should have them just from "getting married".

By all means, let's give the lawyers more work by making it impossible for marriage to bestow those rights and privileges and make EVERYONE have to have legal documents that cover EACH of the situations that right now are covered simply by getting married.

Its not about the Church or religion or morals. Its just about drawing the line on what the state should accept as a valid union. Man and woman is a normal and valid union. Man and man or Man and dog/animal is not normal and the state should not be forced to validate abnormal marriage unions in the name of "fairness".

Again--why is man and man NOT normal? I mean, how many gay people are there, really, who would like to have validation for their love?

And again--man and animal isn't even in the same class---it's like oranges and boxes, for pete's sake!--because the animal CAN NOT GIVE CONSENT.

Until 40 years ago or so, blacks and whites marrying was considered abnormal. Until a couple hundred years ago, marrying outside of your religion was abnormal. Until a couple thousand years ago (or so) marrying only ONE woman was considered abnormal. Until the last couple centuries or so, marrying for LOVE was abnormal--you married who your parents told you to marry, because it would be an advantageous match in some way.

So--are you equating being gay with marrying for love? I mean, if one was abnormal by cultural standards, and the other IS abnormal by cultural standards... isn't that what you're saying?

Its not about the Church or religion or morals. Its just about drawing the line on what the state should accept as a valid union. Man and woman is a normal and valid union. Man and man or Man and dog/animal is not normal and the state should not be forced to validate abnormal marriage unions in the name of "fairness".


What you view as normal is not necessarily what others view as normal. I see love between two humans as normal... man to woman, woman to man, man to man, or woman to woman. Love is love.


I hate to quote myself, but I am...this is from a previous post on this thread.

I would also like to add that the bible is a piece of literary work open to interpretation. How you interpret the bible might not be how I interpret the bible. Often when I sit in church and the Father is giving his homily I think- wow I did not get that out of what the gospel says... I got this. Does that make his interpretation wrong? No... Does it make mine wrong? No. But we need to learn all coexist and get along. Gay or straight we are all human... why all the hate...

Also, to all of you in a heterosexual marriage... can you imagine if your wife/husband was critically hurt and you were told that you could not see them or make decisions on their health. Could you imagine being powerless as the one you love lay in a hospital bed? Homosexuals are looking for equal rights... just like African Americans did in the 60's. Everyone deserves to be treated equally... no I know that it does not happen, but that is what people deserve.

Its not about the Church or religion or morals. Its just about drawing the line on what the state should accept as a valid union. Hello sassy:

If it's NOT about those things, then the state must grant equal access to any contract that bestows RIGHTS upon people. Those RIGHTS are available to ANYBODY. That's how our wonderful system works, and THAT'S where they should draw the line - when EVERYBODY shares the same rights.

excon

Hello sassy:

If it's NOT about those things, then the state must grant equal access to any contract that bestows RIGHTS upon people. Those RIGHTS are available to ANYBODY. That's how our wonderful system works, and THAT'S where they should draw the line - when EVERYBODY shares the same rights.

excon

Excon, honey... if I could buy you a beer, I so would.

[QUOTE=Tuscany]What you view as normal is not necessarily what others view as normal. I see love between two humans as normal... man to woman, woman to man, man to man, or woman to woman. Love is love.


Yeah but someone else will see love between a man and a dog/animal as normal but does that mean the state should also recognise it?
What people see as normal can be subjective, but the State should have an Objective unwavering standard of what the definition of marriage has always been one MAN and one WOMAN.


I hate to quote myself, but I am...this is from a previous post on this thread.

I would also like to add that the bible is a piece of literary work open to interpretation. How you interpret the bible might not be how I interpret the bible. Often when I sit in church and the Father is giving his homily I think- wow I did not get that out of what the gospel says... I got this. Does that make his interpretation wrong? No... Does it make mine wrong? No. But we need to learn all coexist and get along. Gay or straight we are all human... why all the hate...

All of the obove is your opinion on the Bible not facts, but like I said before this has nothing to do with the Bible religion morals, it is just about the state having standards of what is normal.


Also, to all of you in a heterosexual marriage... can you imagine if your wife/husband was critically hurt and you were told that you could not see them or make decisions on their health. Could you imagine being powerless as the one you love lay in a hospital bed? Homosexuals are looking for equal rights... just like African Americans did in the 60's. Everyone deserves to be treated equally... no I know that it does not happen, but that is what people deserve

I don't know why people like to compare being gay and being African American, the two are mutually exlusive and can not be comparable. Race and Sexual orientation are not the same thing.

[QUOTE]


Yeah but someone else will see love between a man and a dog/animal as normal but does that mean the state should also recognise it?
What people see as normal can be subjective, but the State should have an Objective unwavering standard of what the definition of marriage has always been one MAN and one WOMAN.
.
I am amazed that you can compare the love between 2 humans and love between a human and an animal.

[QUOTE]

All of the obove is your opinion on the Bible not facts, but like I said before this has nothing to do with the Bible religion morals, it is just about the state having standards of what is normal. .

You are wrong on this. Those that oppose gay marriage often point to the bible (a piece of literary work) and moral decay.

Standards of normal... wow there is no such thing. What's normal in the North East is not "normal" in the south. How can you have standards for normal when normal is so subjective?


[QUOTE]


I don't know why people like to compare being gay and being African American, the two are mutually exlusive and can not be comparable. Race and Sexual orientation are not the same thing.


I am sorry but aren't you the one that compared sex between two humans and sex between an animal and a human. I am comparing 2 minorities of humans who have been oppressed.

Hello sassy:

If it's NOT about those things, then the state must grant equal access to any contract that bestows RIGHTS upon people. Those RIGHTS are available to ANYBODY. That's how our wonderful system works, and THAT'S where they should draw the line - when EVERYBODY shares the same rights.

excon

So should the State Bestow the RIGHTS on an Individual who wants to marry a dog? Where does the State draw the line? The person who wants marry a dog could present the same argument as gays and demand exqual rights to marry whom or what ever he want to. He could also say he is in love with his dog and wants to be able to marry it and receive the same benefits as a normal married couple.
It could become a real circus unless the State establishes an unwavering standard of normality of what marriage has always been... One MAN and One WOMAN.

Actually, if you're really that Christian, you'd realize that marriage has not ALWAYS been ONE man and ONE woman.

It's been, even in the Bible, one man and SEVERAL women. Isn't THAT against your definition of marriage too?

AGAIN--because you aren't getting this apparently--Two men (or two women) can CONSENT to marry each other. They have brains, and voices, and the ability to state that this is what they want.

A DOG (or any other animal) can NOT voice CONSENT. Therefore, it's not even in the same subject here.

Seriously--what part of CONSENTING ADULT are you not getting?

So should the State Bestow the RIGHTS on an Individual who wants to marry a dog? Where does the State draw the line? the person who wants marry a dog could present the same argument as gays and demand exqual rights to marry whom or what ever he want to. He could also say he is inlove with his dog and wants to be able to marry it and recieve the same benefits as a normal married couple.
It could become a real circus unless the State establishes an unwavering standard of normality of what marriage has always been ... One MAN and One WOMAN.
I am sorry but I fail to see your connection. The Declaration of Independence says all MEN are created equal not all men and animals. How can you compare the love between two people to bestiality?

You are wrong on this. Those that oppose gay marriage often point to the bible (a piece of literary work) and moral decay.

People have their own reasons to oppose Gay marriage, I opposed it just based on common sense of what is normal.


Standards of normal... wow there is no such thing. What's normal in the North East is not "normal" in the south. How can you have standards for normal when normal is so subjective?

Marriage has always been between a man and woman in america and around the world. I don't see why it should be redifined just because a small minority of people who have made a decision to live their lives in defiance to nature. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate gays, in fact I have a lot of gay friends and co-workers I talk to and they all know my views on the subject. I don't care if they want to make commitents to each other, I just don't see why the State should forced to recognise such unions valid because then they may as well change the definition of marriage to include who ever wants to marry another man, animal, plant or object. You know there will be a minority of people who will want to marry their dog or cat. If you redifine marriage you may as well include anyone and anything right?

/sigh

CONSENTING: Able to give permission
ADULT: Those over 18 years of age.

Do you honestly believe that someone or something unable to give personal consent to such a union would be allowed?

When the United States started, it was known that slavery would ALWAYS exist, and the women were the PROPERTY of their husbands. Want to go back to that, because it's such a slippery slope--I mean, my god! Someone, somewhere (probably a politician) wants their DOG to be able to vote, I'm sure! Or since kids are people too--let's let THEM vote! I mean, since we redefined a couple times who is a valid voting citizen of this country, that's a slippery slope, and the next thing you know, someone will bring their PLANTS to the voting booth for them!

/sigh

CONSENTING: Able to give permission
ADULT: Those over 18 years of age.

Do you honestly believe that someone or something unable to give personal consent to such a union would be allowed?

When the United States started, it was known that slavery would ALWAYS exist, and the women were the PROPERTY of their husbands. Want to go back to that, because it's such a slippery slope--I mean, my god! Someone, somewhere (probably a politician) wants their DOG to be able to vote, I'm sure! Or since kids are people too--let's let THEM vote!! I mean, since we redefined a couple times who is a valid voting citizen of this country, that's a slippery slope, and the next thing you know, someone will bring their PLANTS to the voting booth for them!

Your analogy does nothing for your argument because you are not comparing apples to apples here we are talking about marriage. Changing slavery laws and redefining the union that makes marriage is not the same thing.
IF your argument is about consenting adults then are you saying the state should also be forced to recognise polygamous marriages too.

If we are going to give marriage right to everyone who demands them, then The state may as well give rights to a woman who want to marry 5 willing men or a man who wants to marry 20 willing wives. The state should recognise it? These are all "CONSENTING adults" so Where do we draw the line here?

Yes... homosexuality is wrong. Parts entering "exit only" parts, damaging vital organs. It is just not the way we were intended to be. You know it is funny when I hear that homosexuals were born that way, because if that was the case than why have I met so many people that use to be gay or lesbian, but now they aren't?hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm, interesting.

People have their own reasons to oppose Gay marriage, i opposed it just based on common sense of what is normal.



Marriage has always been between a man and woman in america and around the world. i dont see why it should be redifined just because a small minority of people who have made a descision to live their lives in defiance to nature. Dont get me wrong, i dont hate gays, infact i have a lot of gay friends and co-workers i talk to and they all know my views on the subject. I dont care if they want to make commitents to each other, I just dont see why the State should forced to recognise such unions valid because then they may as well change the definition of marriage to include who ever wants to marry another man, animal, plant or object. You know there will be a minority of people who will want to marry their dog or cat. If you redifine marriage you may as well include anyone and anything right?

They are not looking to marry an animal plat or object. They want to marry another HUMAN BEING that they love honor and respect. How would you feel if you were told how and who to love?



I just don't see your connection to animals. When has anyone asked to marry an animal??

Wolf- my aunt was married prior to coming out. If you ask her, she was always gay. She just tried to be what society wanted her to be. Now she has put herself first. Closeminded people can just look the other way.

Is Homosexuality Wrong?

Not to homosexuals, its natural as breathing. The only time its a problem is when people stick their noses in someone elses business.

[QUOTE=Tuscany]They are not looking to marry an animal plat or object. They want to marry another HUMAN BEING that they love honor and respect. How would you feel if you were told how and who to love?

Who said anyone is telling them how and who to love? They can love and get "married" or make comitments to one another, but just don't force the state to recognise it.




I just don't see your connection to animals. When has anyone asked to marry an animal??

If you don't get he animal connection then see what I said to synnen.

yes...homosexuality is wrong. Parts entering "exit only" parts, damaging vital organs. It is just not the way we were intended to be. You know it is funny when I hear that homosexuals were born that way, because if that was the case than why have I met so many people that use to be gay or lesbian, but now they aren't?hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm, interesting.

They still are or never were... I honestly believe that you are born with a sexuality just as you were born with chosen genetalia...

Also, it appears you are only referring to gay men here, at least in the first part of the statement. 1. Where did you hear anal intercourse "damages vital organs"? 2. Not just homosexual men have anal intercourse, so I don't think that argument is arguable...

I also want to applaud whoever disabled the reputation here... that could have not been good!

Hello wolf:

I don't know. If you're a guy, it's too bad you'll never experience the wonder of a great blow job. If you're a girl, you're only giving your guy 10% if'in you don't give him head.

Poor, poor Christians..

excon

Hello wolf:

I dunno. If you're a guy, it's too bad you'll never experience the wonder of a great blow job. If you're a girl, you're only giving your guy 10% if'in you don't give him head.

Poor, poor Christians..

excon

I must have missed that part...

your analogy does nothing for your argument because you are not comparing apples to apples here we are talking about marriage. Changing slavery laws and redefining the union that makes marriage is not the same thing.
IF your argument is about consenting adults then are you saying the state should also be forced to recognise polygamous marriages too.

If we are going to give marriage right to everyone who demands them, then The state may as well give rights to a woman who want to marry 5 willing men or a man who wants to marry 20 willing wives. The state should recognise it? These are all "CONSENTING adults" so Where do we draw the line here?


Why NOT? Why would THAT be a problem, either? Who would it be hurting? The poor, poor people who think marriage = ONE man + ONE woman? BTW, I really hope you don't believe in divorce, either. Since marriage is supposed to be "til death do us part", then they should either kill one another or stick to it for life, hmmm?

As far as why the state needs to be involved--we've told you, over and over: Because the STATE is the one who makes inheritance laws. The STATE is the one who decides who can make medical decisions for an impaired adult. The STATE is the one who makes custody decisions. The STATE is the one who determines property ownership. The STATE is the one who determines who gets tax cuts.

If you were arguing that the CHURCH should not have to recognize gay marriage, I'd agree with you. I don't think the CHURCH should have to recognize anything outside of its set tenets. However, we're talking about the STATE, not the CHURCH.

PS--we're talking about changing laws that affect a group of people NOT in the majority of thinking, and NOT in power. THAT is why bringing up women's right to vote/hold property and slavery are valid arguments.

Hello mamma:

This is a person who thinks there's a part of a body with an exit only sign on it, meaning that it's no place for penis's. Therefore, for the sake of consistancy, I'm assuming that he thinks her mouth also is no place for penis's.

If not, he's just making up the rules as he goes along to suit himself.

excon

Very well said Synnen!! I agree 110%

Hello mamma:

This is a person who thinks there's a part of a body with an exit only sign on it, meaning that it's no place for penis's. Therefore, for the sake of consistancy, I'm assuming that he thinks her mouth also is no place for penis's.

If not, he's just making up the rules as he goes along to suit himself.

excon

I see I see, makes sense...

Morality is the base of most law, and Morality is based on normally some religous values.

An organized society, no matter how small a population, sets laws for its cohesiveness and order. Those rules became equated with religion when rel became a seemingly imp't part of the society. My morality is not in the least based on religion. The closest I can come to admitting that is that I see only the need for 1 'commandment.' It shows up in all major religions (and, I think, most minor ones as well) and cannot be claimed solely by any one rel. It is not listed as one of the Judeo/Christian 10 C, though it is in the Bible: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A group that believes doing harm, theft, etc is "doing unto..." wouldn't last very long.

Hey Listen! Because we are HUMAN! We have the ability to think, decide, This is the only thing which makes us different with the other creatures! Ability of thinking, ability of deciding!
Another reason is that, we are not here in this damn world, to enjoy our BODY! We have spend our time on another things such as enjoying nature, learning, understanding, thinking!
And I appreciate you because you have thought on this matter, this pcychologically means that you still are ration and yourself know that this is not true
Personal info deleted


Be Happy,(not in a stupid way)

;-)

yes...homosexuality is wrong. Parts entering "exit only" parts, damaging vital organs. It is just not the way we were intended to be. You know it is funny when I hear that homosexuals were born that way, because if that was the case than why have I met so many people that use to be gay or lesbian, but now they aren't?hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm, interesting.
Umm. . I'm hetero and love anal sex. Been getting it from my monogamous relationships for quite some time now and have never had any damaged vital organs (you think you're that big, huh?). It has never turned me into a lesbian and even if I wanted to experiment with another woman that doesn't make me a lesbian either. All right, Wolf, how many people EXACTLY have you met personally that were homosexual for more than ten minutes that decided they were sinners and switched that magical light switch that made them "normal"??

Hey Listen! Because we are HUMAN! we have the ability to think, decide,... . this is the only thing which makes us different with the other creatures! ability of thinking, ability of deciding!
another reason is that, we are not here in this damn world, to enjoy our BODY! we have spend our time on another things such as enjoying nature, learning, understanding, thinking!
and I appreciate you because you have thought on this matter, this pcychologically means that you still are ration and yourself know that this is not true! I dont have enough time on answering you about another side of this question which is its impact on social issues! if you liked my answer, I'll tell you more here: [email protected]


Be Happy,(not in a stupid way)



;-)
Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

SassT If we are going to give marriage right to everyone who demands them, then The state may as well give rights to a woman who want to marry 5 willing men or a man who wants to marry 20 willing wives. The state should recognise it? These are all "CONSENTING adults" so Where do we draw the line here?

Synnen Why NOT? Why would THAT be a problem, either? Who would it be hurting? The poor, poor people who think marriage = ONE man + ONE woman? BTW, I really hope you don't believe in divorce, either. Since marriage is supposed to be "til death do us part", then they should either kill one another or stick to it for life, hmmm


Yeeeeaaaaah... so why don't I just marry 28 of my buddies, men and women and get all the benefits of marriage. ;) Great... I see a lot of problems with that, don't you?

Yeeeeaaaaah....... so why dont i just marry 28 of my buddies, men and women and get all the benefits of marriage. ;) Great... i see a lot of problems with that, dont you?

NO!!

Umm . . I'm hetero and love anal sex. Been getting it from my monogamous relationships for quite some time now and have never had any damaged vital organs (you think you're that big, huh?). It has never turned me into a lesbian and even if I wanted to experiment with another woman that doesn't make me a lesbian either. All right, Wolf, how many people EXACTLY have you met personally that were homosexual for more than ten minutes that decided they were sinners and switched that magical light switch that made them "normal"???

Sorry to burst your bubble Notmyname, that would defenately make you a lesbian. ;)
Don't lie to yourself.

NO!!!

Mmm... then lets just have all americans marry each other and be one big "married couple" get benefits right?. lol I told you, allowing gays to marry will just turn this country into a lawless circus.

Sorry to burst your bubble Notmyname, that would defenately make you a lesbian. ;)
Dont lie to yourself.

Have you heard the term "CURIOUS" before? When applied to this situation it's referred to as "bi-curious", or even "bi-sexual"... people can be attracted to both men and women.

Have you heard the term "CURIOUS" before? When applied to this situation it's referred to as "bi-curious", or even "bi-sexual"....people can be attracted to both men and women.

You can sprinkle it with sugar and call it what you want but the bottom line is if you are a man and you have sexual relations with another man, you are a homosexual. Same goes for women.
A Bi-sexual woman is one who is has both lesbian and heterosexual sex.

You can sprinkle it with sugar and call it what you want but the bottom line is if you are a man and you have sexual relations with another man, you are a homosexual. Same goes for women.
A Bi-sexual woman is one who is has both lesbian and heterosexual sex.

Thank you for giving me the obvious definition... that makes a person bi-sexual. I'm not the one that defined it as such. So is she a lesbian OR is she heterosexual? Neither, she's bisexual...

You are a very confused person, it seems.

mmm... then lets just have all americans marry each other and be one big "married couple" get benefits right? ..lol i told you, allowing gays to marry will just turn this country into a lawless circus.

I disagree. Allow them to marry because they are human beings who deserve the same rights as the rest of the human beings in this country. They are consenting adults who can support each other...

Do you think its okay for a gay couple who have been together for 10 or 15 years to not be able to make a medical decision for the other when that person is unable? That's their spouse whether the law wants to recognize it or not... It's not fair, it's discrimination..

You might as well say that inter-racial marriages shouldn't be legal... statements opposing gay marriage are equally as ignorant.

Yeeeeaaaaah....... so why dont i just marry 28 of my buddies, men and women and get all the benefits of marriage. ;) Great... i see a lot of problems with that, dont you?


Nope. Not as long as legal precedence is set up for the occasion. I mean, any or all of those people could then make medical decisions for you, though you'd have to have a living will stating WHICH of those people has precedence. They could all also inherit from you. And any of them could then have custody of your children.

Where's the problem?

Sorry to burst your bubble Notmyname, that would defenately make you a lesbian. ;)
Dont lie to yourself.

At the MOST, it would make her bisexual. But... since she stated that she's just been curious, and hasn't acted on it--it most DEFINITELY doesn't make her more than bi-curious, especially since she has stated that she was attracted to MEN.

Simple answer: Its wrong and unnatural because it doesn't ever repeat itself in nature. There are no homosexual animals right? Basically when other creatures " mate" there is a male and female. Sex is fundementally for reproduction purposes only; humans made it for enjoyment. If it was right, or how nature intended, there would be other creatures on earth who mate with the same sex as well. I believe homosexuality is a choice; but not always a conscious one ( due to chilhood trauma, rape, etc.. )

I'm sorry, no, that's not correct.
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)
I had trauma as a child, I'm heterosexual... And believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

People do have a right to sleep with who they want, but don't ask society to validate or support such behavior.

People do have a right to sleep with who they want, but don't ask society to validate or support such behavior.

Why not?

So... since I've answered YOUR questions, Sassy, I would like you to answer mine:

1. Do you believe in divorce?
2. Do you think that people should have sex (in ANY form) if they're not actively trying to have a child? Remember, this means that married couples past menopause would no longer be able to have sex, either.
3. If you believe that sex is ONLY for procreation, do you think that birth control should be legal?
4. Do you really have 28 friends that would be willing to marry you? I mean, I thought I was doing well with having 2-3 friends that would be willing, if situations were different.
5. Do you understand the words "adult" and "consenting"?

Seriously--you say you're not prejudiced against gays, yet EVERY argument you give makes them sound like lesser people, like animals, in fact.

People do have a right to sleep with who they want, but don't ask society to validate or support such behavior.


I don't need society's validation or support in this. But I refuse to accept their interference in private relations between consenting adults.

People do have a right to sleep with who they want, but don't ask society to validate or support such behavior.


Fine. Then I don't validate or support your right to marry a member of the opposite sex. I'm part of society, so therefore, you can't. You can sleep with whomever you want, though.

Good point... I want to elaborate on #2. That means also women who have had their "tubes tied", both men and women that are sterile.

Thank you for giving me the obvious definition....that makes a person bi-sexual. I'm not the one that defined it as such. So is she a lesbian OR is she heterosexual? Neither, she's bisexual....

You are a very confused person, it seems.

She is envolved in Both. So she is both a lesbian and a heterosexual otherwise known as a bisexual. People who are bi-sexual fall under the same GAY classification so I am not going to split hairs about it.

Actually she's not... it was an example...

And by that theory she would also fall under the STRAIGHT category.

I don't believe homosexuality is "right," so I don't partake. I have friends that are homosexuals, and I treat them just like any of my other friends. I don't have anything against people who are homosexuals, just against the act of homosexuality itself. Likewise, I have friends that are underage and drink. I don't approve of it, so I don't do it, but I still hang out with them when they're sober. As for the act of homosexuality, I think that it's not "natural." A girl and another girl just don't "fit" together, and neither do a guy and a guy. It was obviously not the intention of nature. Some might rebutt this on the grounds that nature has caused homosexuals to swing that way and that is why they are homosexual, but nature has also caused for some pretty horrific genetic defects, and because they are not the norm, we don't generally view them as natural. No I realize that there are more than a few gay people in the world, but I'd be willing to bet that they all added up would not surpass the number of people living and dying with diseases. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that homosexuality is a disease, just making a point that just because it exists doesn't make it natural. If you ask me, which you indirectly did, I think it's population control. When there is more life on earth than it can support, people start dying off at a faster rate due to higher rate of disease transmission from being so close, and maybe more people are gay so they don't reproduce. As for bisexuals, they're just selfish. They want some of everything. (that was a joke... don't go grab a pitchfork on me)

Society and it's laws, supports all humans or none. Human Beings are society. Your notions do not make you a better human unless you support all of society too. Yes, society includes even murderers, liars and those who hold differing religious view from you.

People do have a right to sleep with who they want, but don't ask society to validate or support such behavior.

Right?? Who gives them such right?? The government ? Law ?
I challenge there is no such right, there is the ability to under the current law structure in the US and some other parts of the world.

Just wanted to make some points
Homosexuality is considered a sin according to the Bible (which I believe)
BUT the Bible also says that gluttony, arrogance, gossip, back biting, adultery and fornication are sin.
Most preachers that come against homosexuals fall in at least two of the groups of all the things the Bible calls sin.
Not that I am condoning two wrongs make a right or anything like that but simply that
sin is sin and we all fall short at pleasing God so we have no upper hand in 'removing the spec from someone else's eye when we have a log in our own'.

But doesn't the bible also say that all sins are forgiven if you apologize (repent)?

Nope. Not as long as legal precedence is set up for the occasion. I mean, any or all of those people could then make medical decisions for you, though you'd have to have a living will stating WHICH of those people has precedence. They could all also inherit from you. And any of them could then have custody of your children.

Where's the problem?

That where you and I differ. Allowing polygomous marriages such as allowing a woman to marry 50 men for example in the name of "rights" and forcing the state to recognise it, is absurd.
One woman being allowed to marry 50 men is just as absurd as allowing two men to marry and the state should not be forced to recognise such ridiculous unions lest the country become a lawless circus.

So... since I've answered YOUR questions, Sassy, I would like you to answer mine:

[QUOTE]1. Do you believe in divorce?

Personally no.. But I have no problem with others doing it.


2. Do you think that people should have sex (in ANY form) if they're not actively trying to have a child? Remember, this means that married couples past menopause would no longer be able to have sex, either.

To answer the real question you are asking, I couldn't care less if homosexualls have sex.


3. If you believe that sex is ONLY for procreation, do you think that birth control should be legal?

Sex is can be for pleasure too and if homos find pleasure doing it.. hey let them do it, everyone is free to do what pleasures them but don't force the state to recognise a marriage between them.



4. Do you really have 28 friends that would be willing to marry you? I mean, I thought I was doing well with having 2-3 friends that would be willing, if situations were different.

For the right kind of benefits and tax exeptions I can see 100 women and men wanting to marry me. People will take advantage of lose definition of marriage and it will cease to have meaning.


5. Do you understand the words "adult" and "consenting"?

Yes


Seriously--you say you're not prejudiced against gays, yet EVERY argument you give makes them sound like lesser people, like animals, in fact.

I do not hate gays at all, some them are pretty cool and yes like I said I do have gay friends but I find their life style abnormal and disturbing.

I disagree. Allow them to marry because they are human beings who deserve the same rights as the rest of the human beings in this country. They are consenting adults who can support eachother...

Do you think its okay for a gay couple who have been together for 10 or 15 years to not be able to make a medical decision for the other when that person is unable? That's their spouse whether the law wants to recognize it or not....It's not fair, it's discrimination..

You might as well say that inter-racial marriages shouldn't be legal....statements opposing gay marriage are equally as ignorant.



Here's my problem WHENEVER this "discussion" begins - the words "ignorant" and "confused" get thrown at people with opposite points of view. Suddenly it's a racial issue, too. I see no connection between gay unions and bi-racial unions, think it's a stretch, but, hey, maybe it's just me. And, by the way, for a very long time bi-racial unions WERE against the law in some States and people had to fight to change those laws and marry the person they loved.

I digress -

And as far as the legality is concerned - ANY COUPLE, straight, gay, that is together without marriage MUST make legal arrangements for a variety of "what ifs." The gay couple not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other is no different from the straight couple, never married, not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other. Neither category (gay nor straight) has the edge here.

I believe it's a mistake to throw the "medical decision" (and I've seen in here, on similar threads before, and have said nothing) argument into the discussion.

If you love your partner (again, married or unmarried, whatever the situation) and want that person to make your medical (and possibly legal) decisions PUT IT IN WRITING. If you love someone you owe it to them to protect them when you are too sick to make a decision and they might/could have a fight on their hands.

Mothers, fathers, children, try to step in front of legal spouses and make these decisions all the time - PUT IT IN WRITING. Anyone remember Terri Shiavo? I was MARRIED and we had mutual Powers/Attorney, Living Wills, Medical Authorizations, notarized letters - that's how my husband protected me when I was too grief stricken to focus on anything but him.

The ability to make a medical decision for someone else is NOT a gay/straight issue and should NOT be part of a gay/straight discussion.

Clunk! Off my soapbox!

So... if you don't care if homosexuals have sex, and like and respect them--WHY do you care so much whether they get married? HOW will it lead to corruption of the country, and lawlessness, and circus-ness? If sex is for pleasure, and marriage is for love--where is the problem?

YOU don't like homosexual activities--so, like your stance on divorce, just don't do them! Don't stop others from leading happy lives just because YOU wouldn't do it!

I personally think that divorce should be illegal and that anyone should be able to marry anyone else they like--providing they realize that they're NEVER going to be parted. Maybe it would bring back some of the "sanctity" of marriage if you couldn't divorce!

If someone is willing to make a lifelong commitment to someone else, who CARES what sexual orientation they are? Why do YOU care? All recognizing gay marriages would do is give them the same rights as straight marriages--do you feel threatened by that or something?

It comes down to the fact that NOT allowing gays to marry is discriminatory. That's FINE, as long as you acknowledge that that's what you're really doing--discriminating against homosexual couples. And again--I have absolutely NO problems with the church not recognizing gay marriages. I do, however, take issue with the fact that the STATE is discriminatory, and that they are being discriminatory based on a RELIGIOUS view.

Here's my problem WHENEVER this "discussion" begins - the words "ignorant" and "confused" get thrown at people with opposite points of view. Suddenly it's a racial issue, too. I see no connection between gay unions and bi-racial unions, think it's a stretch, but, hey, maybe it's just me. And, by the way, for a very long time bi-racial unions WERE against the law in some States and people had to fight to change those laws and marry the person they loved.

I digress -

And as far as the legality is concerned - ANY COUPLE, straight, gay, that is together without marriage MUST make legal arrangements for a variety of "what ifs." The gay couple not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other is no different from the straight couple, never married, not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other. Neither category (gay nor straight) has the edge here.

I believe it's a mistake to throw the "medical decision" (and I've seen in here, on similar threads before, and have said nothing) argument into the discussion.

If you love your partner (again, married or unmarried, whatever the situation) and want that person to make your medical (and possibly legal) decisions PUT IT IN WRITING. If you love someone you owe it to them to protect them when you are too sick to make a decision and they might have a fight on their hands.

Mothers, fathers, children, try to step in front of legal spouses and make these decisions all the time - PUT IT IN WRITING. Anyone remember Terri Shiavo? I was MARRIED and we had mutual Powers/Attorney, Living Wills, Medical Authorizations, notarized letters - that's how my husband protected me when I was too grief stricken to focus on anything but him.

The ability to make a medical decision for someone else is NOT a gay/straight issue and should NOT be part of a gay/straight discussion.

Clunk! Off my soapbox!

The ONLY reason I include it in my arguments, Judy, is that as a married woman, I CAN make medical decisions for my husband. I couldn't do that as his girlfriend, no--and that's one of the main reasons we got married rather than just continuing to live in sin ;)

As his girlfriend, I could not even get into his hospital room. I could get no updates on his well-being. Nothing. But hey presto! We get married, and the doctors are HAPPY to talk to me!

A living will, notorized letters, powers of attorney, etc--that only works so far. Granted, it's more effective in medical issues--but how many wills have been overturned by family members of gay couples? How much more often does it happen that people are sympathetic to the family of the sick/deceased/disoriented person than they are to the "long term partner" of that person?

Yes, as far as it goes with "dating" couples, gays and straights have the same rights. What bothers me is that a MARRIED couple (which gays don't have the "right" to--yet) has rights that "dating" couples don't--and are being denied to a class of citizen because of sexual orientation.

We have living wills too, and notorized copies of our medical wishes (my husband and I, that is). The lucky thing is that it's unlikely that the state would rule in favor of our families over us, even if we DID NOT have those documents.

I honestly wish I had documentation and statistics as to how often it doesn't work for gay couples (living wills and such). I just don't have time today to find those, though.

But doesn't the bible also say that all sins are forgiven if you apologize (repent)?

Repent and ask for forgiveness and do your best to walk away from that sin and never commit it again.

Not arguing with you, Synnen - I admire and respect your "work." At this moment in my life this subject is almost too painful for me to discuss - not a cop out, the truth. BUT:

Wills are challenged every day by parents, children, stepchildren. A binding Will, properly written and executed, is not going to be overturned by virtue of gay/straight. Straight Wills are overturned. A Will does not address sexual orientation - for that matter, I could leave my estate to my dog.

Marriage is not an automatic Power of Attorney -

And I respectfully suggest - and I do mean respectfully - that you are taking a lot for granted as far as medical decisions and who would prevail.

Again - this is almost too painful to speak of. My husband, my legal husband, was dying with all that documentation in place - and my stepdaughter tried to get an Order to void his living will. I suddenly found myself alone, fighting for what my husband expressly wanted, what he had legally addressed. When I wasn't sitting at the bedside of my husband I was on the phone with my Attorney. My husband died before the matter could be heard. I cannot begin to explain or express the pain and anguish of those weeks - or my loss.

I don't know why you think your State would NOT rule over the family instead of the partner, but perhaps that is the case where you live. It is NOT the case in NYS.

My apologies for touching on a painful subject Judy--the admiration is mutual, I assure you.

My apologies for touching on a painful subject Judy--the admiration is mutual, I assure you.



No, no apologies necessary - I brought myself into the discussion. It is just that my experience with the legal aspect was so horrendous I thought other people should be aware what COULD happen.

[QUOTE]do not try to shift your religious beliefs unrequested onto others.

Ummm, I did say in my post.. speaking for myself ! I was not speaking for you or anyone else who has obvious differing opinions and if I appeared to be shoving my beliefs down your throat by simply typing in a few words and pushing 'enter' then please accept my humblest apologies. I don't think I force you to come to this site, do I? It's your choice, as is everything in life.


And I note that even christian people seem unable to keep to these guidelines, so why you don't start with yourself and your own and to start displaying how people should live, and show others the way by example?

I'm sorry, have we met already? Do you spy on me? Are you stalking me? :p I can think of no other explanation for you assuming me to be like every other "christian" out there. That is the whole problem with religion today. Too much hypocrisy. You're right on the button in saying that too many people don't set a good example for others, especially religious ones. The christian organisation I associate with, prides itself in being unhyprocritical and nonjudgemental. If willful badness is uncovered within our congregations, the wrongdoer is expelled. The reason being , there's no room for compromise where God's laws and principles are concerned. He loves us all but will not tolerate willful wrongdoing. If all so called christian churches followed the example set out by the 1st century christians, then we wouldn't have so much disharmony and confusion today. Mind you, Jesus did foretell that these things would occur so I accept these things as prophesy being fulfilled.



All comments made are not intended for use of force, slander, and or other and are entirely from the members own beliefs.
:D

... I did say in my post..speaking for myself !
That may be true, but your statement was based on your religious beliefs and nothing else.
It was fair to point that out on a board like this one.

:rolleyes:

Crede: I don't think you need to point that out. I think it's quite obvious what my beliefs are according to what I post. That's why I post comments, to let others know what I believe. You make it sound like the people that read these posts are slow or something! Or maybe you need to reassure yourself that you are indeed right and I am so very wrong! Hih, fair enough.

Marriage is about becoming one and literally joining together as one. That can not be done with homosexuals.

How do you know? Marriage has also become about people sharing their lives because of a loving commitment to one another. One doesn't have to be hetero to fall in love - and that's what the "joining together as one" is all about, isn't it?

How can you have standards for normal when normal is so subjective?


Bravo! Well said.

Simple answer: Its wrong and unnatural because it doesn't ever repeat itself in nature. There are no homosexual animals right? Basically when other creatures " mate" there is a male and female. Sex is fundementally for reproduction purposes only; humans made it for enjoyment. If it was right, or how nature intended, there would be other creatures on earth who mate with the same sex as well. I believe homosexuality is a choice; but not always a conscious one ( due to chilhood trauma, rape, etc..)

Apologies if someone else has already corrected you... but there are homosexuals in just about (if not all) species where there are 2 sexes (at least vertebrates). It occurs with the same ap 10% frequency as in humans.

Bonobos, a species once thought to be the same as chimps, have free sex all the time. It is a matriarchal society and they use sex almost as a greeting, as well as to diffuse arguments. They also don't care which gender they are having sex with - male-male, female-female, male-female.

Repent and ask for forgiveness and do your best to walk away from that sin and never commit it again.

JH- you know that I love and respect you. But honestly, as a Catholic this is the biggest issue for me (and I know that our discussion is not about having the church recognize gay marriage), How can the Catholic Church condemn people who are doing nothing but loving another human being? Its not like homosexuals are going on a crazed rant and shooting up the joint. They just want to live, love, and marry like the rest of us.

If the church does not want to recognize the marriage that is fine with me. The US government should though because the government is "for the people, by the people."
And the last time I checked homosexuals were people too.

If the church does not want to recognize the marriage that is fine with me. The US government should though because the government is "for the people, by the people."
And the last time I checked homosexuals were people too.
Denying one section of society equal rights, then we can all be denied our rights.

Denying one section of society equal rights, then we can all be denied our rights.

EXACTLY my point. Thanks for clarifying Tal!

The human is never being denied, their actions are. Society has and can always put limits on actions, wear clothing, sex with minor children and prevoius and in some nations homosexual activity.

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have their sexual desires made into a right. I get so tired of this, I have a "right" no there is no right, Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have thier sexual desires made into a right. Is heterosexual activity a right in the U.S.

Wait... how is "marriage" equal to "sexual desires"?

Seriously--I thought marriage was about love, not sex.

If you tried to tell a heterosexual couple they could not get married because they enjoy fellatio, or anal sex, or whatever---can you imagine the social uproar that would cause? Yet causing two people who love each other not to be able to marry simply because they have homosexual sex is ridiculous.

It's not their "lifestyle" you disapprove of--it's their sexual acts. So if you have no problem with them living together--why should there be a problem with committing to each other?

Heterosexual activity is not a "right" in the US--yet people claim they have the right to marry! Having children is not a right in this country--but try to take that privilege away from people sometime. Having enough to eat is not a "right" in this country--yet try taking away those food stamps sometime. There are a LOT of things in this country that are not "rights", but yet if you tried to take that away from people, there would be outrage.

The human is never being denied, thier actions are. Society has and can always put limits on actions, wear clothing, sex with minor children and prevoius and in some nations homosexual activity.

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have thier sexual desires made into a right. I get so tired of this, I have a "right" no there is no right, Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,


Apparently you have forgotten a founding tenet - Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And while some conservatives disagree, I read a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court also agreed (suit against state of Conn - senior moment and I can't remember the case name) that the gov has no right interfering in folks bedrooms.

Homosexual activity is not a right in the US, it is not promosed in the US, they have all the same actual RIGHTS as anyone else. They just wish to have thier sexual desires made into a right. I get so tired of this, I have a "right" no there is no right, Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Last time I check, heterosexual marriages weren't based on sexual desires... I'm pretty sure this is an ugly stereotype. For some reason, some people seem think homosexuals just want to have sex. Apparently they're incapable of feeling love?

As for the constitution, it's a shame there aren't any provisions IN the constitution, to CHANGE the constitution. This seems like it might be a good time for that. I mean, that would allow us to give women the right to own land, and to vote. Maybe african americans could be citizens then, too.

Read the US Bill of Rights and see who the Government says gave you any rights, and see what is given, homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Is the heterosexual lifestyle listed? Homosexuals do not enjoy every right that everyone else has... I am sorry Fr. Chuck, but I have to disagree.

Talk to my Aunt sometime. She loves her girlfriend, they have been together for years, they have more love and compassion for each other then some parents I interact with at school. They maintain a loving home for their daughter and work hard as social workers. They offer so much to society and yet society denies them the ability to marry. It just makes me so sad.

As I stated in my nature argument... sex was made for reproduction primarily. If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together... in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.

as I stated in my nature argument... sex was made for reproduction primarily. If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together...in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.

So you do not have sex for pleasure?

as I stated in my nature argument... sex was made for reproduction primarily. If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together...in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.

So what should we do with people who are born with deformed genitals? Or people who are born sterile? Or people who become sterile as a result of medical treatments? They can't reproduce, they might not even be able to have sex for pleasure. Should they not be afforded the same rights as those who are "normal"?

And how do you explain homosexuality found in the animal world?

Here's my problem WHENEVER this "discussion" begins - the words "ignorant" and "confused" get thrown at people with opposite points of view. Suddenly it's a racial issue, too. I see no connection between gay unions and bi-racial unions, think it's a stretch, but, hey, maybe it's just me. And, by the way, for a very long time bi-racial unions WERE against the law in some States and people had to fight to change those laws and marry the person they loved.

I digress -

And as far as the legality is concerned - ANY COUPLE, straight, gay, that is together without marriage MUST make legal arrangements for a variety of "what ifs." The gay couple not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other is no different from the straight couple, never married, not being "allowed" to make medical decisions for each other. Neither category (gay nor straight) has the edge here.

I believe it's a mistake to throw the "medical decision" (and I've seen in here, on similar threads before, and have said nothing) argument into the discussion.

If you love your partner (again, married or unmarried, whatever the situation) and want that person to make your medical (and possibly legal) decisions PUT IT IN WRITING. If you love someone you owe it to them to protect them when you are too sick to make a decision and they might/could have a fight on their hands.

Mothers, fathers, children, try to step in front of legal spouses and make these decisions all the time - PUT IT IN WRITING. Anyone remember Terri Shiavo? I was MARRIED and we had mutual Powers/Attorney, Living Wills, Medical Authorizations, notarized letters - that's how my husband protected me when I was too grief stricken to focus on anything but him.

The ability to make a medical decision for someone else is NOT a gay/straight issue and should NOT be part of a gay/straight discussion.

Clunk! Off my soapbox!

Lol... Yes I fully agree with you. The whole medical decisions thing is weak argument. And to connecting gay couples to interatial marriages is a stretch beyond words.

Sassy and Judy-
So you would be good with not having any rights if your husband or wife needed medical attention?

There are always exceptions to the rule, or a few odd instances where nature goes wrong... but those instances a far and in between; and they are out of the person's control. You are asking if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Basically, a mass group of people who are DECIDING to be with the same sex regardless of what nature intends; and they want the state to validate it to make them feel better. I don't agree. You can do whatever you want behind closed doors; be common law or something, but don't ask for the government to sign on with this UNNATURAL behavior.

There are always exceptions to the rule, or a few odd instances where nature goes wrong....but those instances a far and in between; and they are out of the person's control. You are asking if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Basically, a mass group of people who are DECIDING to be with the same sex regardless of what nature intends; and they want the state to validate it to make them feel better. I don't agree. You can do whatever you want behind closed doors; be common law or something, but don't ask for the government to sign on with this UNNATURAL behavior.

Could you answer my question please... you said that sex is for procreation... do you not have sex for pleasure?

My definition of natural is love between two people. It is unnatural to show hate and not accept others.

And I have to take time and validate that article because for all I know it could have been written or influenced by people trying to promote homosexuality as being right. People skew information to be what they want it to be anyway. The media, special interest groups, etc. do it all of the time.

And I have to take time and validate that article because for all I know it could have been written or influenced by people trying to promote homosexuality as being right. People skew information to be what they want it to be anyways. The media, special interest groups, etc., do it all of the time.
Kia-
Your "side" does the same thing.

That may be true, but your statement was based on your religious beliefs and nothing else.
It was fair to point that out on a board like this one.



So is it fair for you to base your responses on YOUR secular humanistic religion?
You have such double standards :rolleyes:

and they want the state to validate it to make them feel better. I don't agree.Hello Kia:

If you're going to argue, it would help if you had the facts... You can take your "feel better" argument and stick it. They don't want to FEEL GOOD. They want RIGHTS - the rights that people get when they get married. The same rights YOU have that THEY DON'T.

excon

Sassy and Judy-
So you would be good with not having any rights if your husband or wife needed medical attention?


Like judy said, if a gay couple wants to make med. Decisions for one another they can put it in writing and get POA.

And I have to take time and validate that article because for all I know it could have been written or influenced by people trying to promote homosexuality as being right. People skew information to be what they want it to be anyways. The media, special interest groups, etc., do it all of the time.

I'm having to remember an the article from yesterday---so forgive me if my mind is sketchy--but wasn't one of the articles given from National Geographic?

Yes, but you are talking about the issue of marriage, and government recognition. Adultery and polygamy is against the law because it is unlawful to have the government recognize a union between 2 people, and then have people sleeping around for pleasure.; or even sleeping with more than one person.
I can have a boyfriend and sleep around for pleasure; but I'm not asking the state to recognize my union until I am committed and ready to start a life with that person. Its natural for families to be made by 2 people of the opposite sex, each sex have roles physically and emotionally to raise new healthy human beings. Homosexuality is a lot of substitution and confusion because both gender roles are not there. That's another reason why its unnatural in my opinion..

Hello Kia:

If you're going to argue, it would help if you had the facts.... You can take your "feel better" argument and stick it. They don't want to FEEL GOOD. They want RIGHTS - the rights that people get when they get married. The same rights YOU have that THEY DON'T.

excon


Gays do Have rights! They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. So don't say they don't have rights because they do.

And if a gay couple wants their partner to be their "next of kin", can they just put it in writing? How about inheriting? What about custody of children?

I have an idea!

Let's make everyone equal by taking away those assumed things like custody, and inheritance, and the right to view financial information (in some states anyway) and the ability to have joint credit--let's just take those away from everyone unless it's put in writing. Basically--if you don't have a will, it goes to the state. Everything. Any will produced can no longer be contested unless an ALTERNATE will is also produced.

Custody of children will now go to the state. The state can then decide what's best for the children, which may include giving them for adoption to someone completely unrelated and unknown, depending on the state's view of the fitness for parenting that the partner of the deceased and the family of the deceased.

The state will no longer recognize marriage as a tax break, nor will any couple be able to file joint taxes.

All medical decisions must be put into a legal document, and NO ONE is allowed to see the person being treated, nor can they receive information on the status of the patient, until the lawyer is called who has the document on file to find out WHO can be given that information. Disclosure agreements must be filled out and signed by anyone being admitted to the hospital who can be trusted to fill out their own forms at the time of admittance.

So basically--instead of GIVING homosexuals the privileges of marriage--let's just take them away from heterosexuals and we'll all be equal.

So then should bisexuals be able to marry both sexes as well? I mean when is the foolishness going to stop. I think as individuals we should put more time and energy into more important issues of the world like homelessness, disease, etc. Stop focusing on such minor issues like why a guy can't marry his boyfriend... geez.

Sassy and Judy-
So you would be good with not having any rights if your husband or wife needed medical attention?



Why have you come to the conclusion that I "would be good with not having any rights if my husband ... needed medical attention"?

What part of my postings led you to that conclusion?

Honest to goodness--

I can not WAIT until it's PROVEN that homosexuality is genetic, that it's as much a part of a person as their race.

I'd like to see the arguments for discrimination at that point.

so then should bisexuals be able to marry both sexes as well? I mean when is the foolishness going to stop. I think as individuals we should put more time and energy into more important issues of the world like homelessness, disease, etc. Stop focusing on such minor issues like why a guy can't marry his boyfriend...geez.

Tell you what--my solutions to homelessness and disease would work just fine by your standards--

It's the problem of the homeless people and the diseased people, and since I'm not homeless or diseased, they don't really need MY help. I mean, if they just got a job, or hadn't done the activities that got them the disease (including being born, since I believe that being homosexual is genetic) in the first place--well, then there wouldn't be a problem!

Seriously--can you not see that equality is as important as any other issue?

Stop focusing on such minor issues like why a guy can't marry his boyfriend...geez.Hello again, Kia:

If these were YOUR rights that were being denied to YOU, I'll bet you wouldn't think the issue is minor. Nope, of course you wouldn't. But, as long as you've got yours, screw the rest, right?


If you look at the body of a man and woman, they were made to fit together...in order to reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural, sorry.I also bring your attention to the other question you didn't answer, as I doubt you'll answer this one as well.

I assume you do not have sex for pleasure. I also assume that you do not enjoy the benefits of oral sex, cause those parts weren't made for each other either. If you DO any of those things, and I'll bet you do, you're just an ordinary hypocrite.

excon

Yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases. I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases. I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.


Regardless of why they are the way they are. Can they still not enjoy the freedom and rights just like everyone else.

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases.


I'd like to see the studies that show this. As far as I'm aware, there is no determination yet on whether there is a genetic cause or not, though several studies point in that direction. Can environmental/situational causes lead to homosexuality? Maybe... but no gay I've ever known can point to such a cause. They all claim it came "naturally."

Regardless of why they are the way they are. Can they still not enjoy the freedom and rights just like everyone else.

Bravo!

To excon-
Yes I do. I did say that. I said that I'm not asking the state to validate my behavior. Your argument is a liitle silly.. but OK. I'm not asking the state to validate my sexual behavior so its different

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases.

Do you have proof of that? Last I heard, it hadn't been proven definitively in either direction.



I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.

Amazing that YOU are not homosexual, yet you can speak for all of them about EXACTLY what "caused" their homosexuality.

Sources, please.

to excon-
yes i do. i did say that. I said that I'm not asking the state to validate my behavior. Your argument is a liitle silly..but ok. I'm not asking the state to validate my sexual behavior so its different

No one is asking the state to validate sexual behavior.

We are asking the state to grant equal access to a social institution that gives rights a certain group, but excludes another.

And the basis for your argument for why the state should not validate these unions as 'marriage' is based upon the sexual activity you find 'unnatural'. As though sexual activity is all a marriage is based upon, and ignoring the love, commitment, and compassion that two people have for one another.

So if sexual behavior should dictate my ability to marry, it should also dictate yours. It doesn't matter how you feel towards your potential spouse... it doesn't matter what kind of relationship you have... it doesn't matter how long you've been together... no, what matters is what kind of sex you're having. And if it isn't the 'right' kind of sex, then no marriage for you.

to excon-
yes i do. i did say that. I said that I'm not asking the state to validate my behavior. Your argument is a liitle silly..but ok. I'm not asking the state to validate my sexual behavior so its different

They aren't asking the state to validate their sexual behaviour, either.

They're asking the state to validate their love and commitment to each other.

Or did YOU marry/will you marry for your sexual behaviour?

homosexual life style is not listed anywhere. And they enjoy every right everyone else has,

Except to marry and get a tax break. Personally, if they want the headache of divorce, let 'em get married, since that's where half the marriages end up anyway.

I'm still trying to figure out this "homosexual lifestyle" that's being throw around. Is that the same as living together, making babies, and NOT being married?

Be careful of your answer as I know where there are endless amounts of posts about the "lifestyles of heterosexuals".

I also think eventually, as with every other group who wants equality, they will fight for, and win what they want.

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases. I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.

That's an age old excuse to rationalise not having empathy, "its all their fault". As to the part of the post that's been highlighted, are you serious??

All of them claim it is " natural"
I take my experience from playing women's basketball for over 10 years in college and high school. I used to believe it was natural too until I watched my fellow teammates and roomates go from one extreme to another , and then claim after the fact that they were always like that. Every single year there a were always new freshman who would come in straight as an arrow( talking about boyfriends and all that). Then they would end up hanging out with the crowd who everyone knew were bi or gay, talkin' about how they do not discriminate, and a few months later have a new GIRLFRIEND. It was bull. Then they claimed they were always lesbian.

I had 2 roommates who started college the same year as I did. They were straight when we started playing but changed later on. After talking to them more often they told me the real story. One of them liked guys, but the guys she liked never wanted her( treated her like one of the boys), and when she started at our particular school all these women started telling her how pretty she was so she started hanging out with them more often. She said her self confidence was boosted. Then she moved to the gay crowd, and said she loved being gay & didn't want to go back. She said she doesn't really look at men like that anymore. If you met her today, you would never believe that she EVER liked a man. She was real flamboyant, tough & rebellious against anyone telling her what to do. Always focusing on her "rights" as a human being to do whatever she wants to.

The other one slept around with a lot of men and got heartbroken while in our 2 and year when I was here roommate. She started hanging out with " the crowd"; sudenly all types of butch gay chicks were always in my room. I had to leave 1/2 the time. She told me women understood women's emotions more & she liked to use strapons with them. But she claimed to be bi.

These were some of the converations I had, and they used to tell me stories about their friends who were gay as well. I have a couple other stories , to share from playing AAU & high school ball, but but I won't write all of that today.

That's when I stopped believing that being gay is "natural", its not. There's always a reason... and if you dig deep enough you will find one almost 100% of the time.

to excon-
yes i do. i did say that. I said that I'm not asking the state to validate my behavior. Your argument is a liitle silly..but ok. I'm not asking the state to validate my sexual behavior so its differentHello again, Kia:

If you are married, and you take advantage of the rights bestowed upon you by the state, then you are INDEED asking the state to validate your behavior.

But you DO recognize that a penis fits nicely into a mouth, and that's OK to do that, even though your mouth wasn't designed that way. So, your "design" argument is out the window, right??

Nahhh, I think you're just a hypocrite.

excon

It was bull. Then they claimed they were always lesbian.

Given the attitudes of people against gays, wouldn't you keep it to yourself to fit in and not be singled out for ridicule? Many that were in the closet are coming out, and just being themselves. In humans homosexuality is not as cut and dried as we think, as there are varying degrees of sexuality, that others refuse to recognize.

Speaking of nature, there are many species that are asexual, yet reproduce, and there are those that actually changes sex, to propagate the species, so nature finds a way, whether us humans understand it, or not.

Nooooo excon. Is the mouth designed to birth babies? Is the rectal area not designed to relieve waste? Duh.

nooooo excon. Is the mouth designed to birth babies? Is the rectal area not designed to relieve waste? duh.


I really, truly hope that you only have sex to have babies, then. Seriously--if that's your argument, I never, EVER want to see a question about you getting pleasure from sex, or about birth control.

Because sex is for babies ONLY--in your opinion.

yea... umm... but homosexuality is not genteic in 98% of the cases. I can't say 100% because just like there are hermaphrodites, people born with deformities, and other rare instances, there are natural born homosexuals. But, the masses who claim they are were not born this way. They had childood trauma that affected them subconsciously, or consciously; they want to experiment or be rebellious; or they are so bitter with one sex that they decide to try something new.

Hmmm I guess I should ask Aunt Donna about this. She never had any childhood trauma nor was she burned by the opposite sex. In fact her ex husband and her are extremely close, best friends really. She just could not live the lie anymore. She had to be who she is. Now she wants rights like she had when she was married.

Can you please point me to that study. Thank you

Edit: Excon, Tal and Synn: RIGHT ON

No. I don't think it is natural and it is hard for me not to tell you why without referring to the Bible. My cousin is gay and I love her dearly she is so much fun to be with. I just think the lifestyle is wrong in God's eyes. I wouldn't hate someone because of it nor do I believe God does.

Like I said a lot of people don't admit what they have gone through in childhood, don't remember, or were to young to realize what they were exposed to. There are a lot of situations where a seed ( molestation, hanging around other family members, etc.) was planted in a child's mind when children are very young and they grow up with feelings they can't explain. Then they grow up thinking they were " born" that way, when that wasn't really the case.

At least ancient man had his own survival to worry about henceforth his stance against gay people, but we no longer have that excuse.

A very disturbing thought has just crossed my mind, are me and my wife wrong for still enjoying sex with each other. Trust me we ain't looking for no more kids, more grandkids would be okay though, we're going for a baseball team.

Some one please let me know as its Friday night.

Everyone knows sex was obvously made by God for procreation. Let's not deny this; the pleasure part is an add on. Sex in the world JUST for pleasure. Humans do it for pleasure and enjoyment, but it was not created for this purpose alone.

Not everyone knows that "god" put it there. As a matter of fact, MY goddess doesn't give a damn who's having sex with whom, as long as people treat each other well, cause no harm and do not take away the free will of others. But hey--YOU brought gods into this, not me. Your god means nothing to me, nor do his "rules". So... I should have to live by YOUR religion's rules, is that what you're telling me? And homosexuals, as well, should live by YOUR religion's rules? Who died and made YOUR religion boss? I thought there was SEPARATION of church and state in this country!

By making sex pleasurable, nature did indeed ensure that species would WANT to procreate--but take a gander into Adult Sexuality sometime and count how many posts a month we have from women who can't orgasm. And really, the woman doesn't NEED to orgasm (or even enjoy sex) for procreation to take place. Ask the pregnant victim of a rape about that.

Sorry to burst your bubble Notmyname, that would defenately make you a lesbian. ;)
Dont lie to yourself.
(Sassy was responding to me saying that I like anal and am bi-curious, haven't even tried)
Wow, my boyfriend will be so dissapointed to find that out.
Sassy, don't be a pawn.

(Sassy was responding to me saying that I like anal and am bi-curious, haven't even tried)
Wow, my boyfriend will be so dissapointed to find that out.
Sassy, don't be a pawn.

bi-curious, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, try-sexual = Gay

Well u guys can live in a fantasy world where there is a separation of church and state, but the reality is that religion plays a major part in this country; like it or not. So all you guys can kick and scream because things are not "fair", but taxes aren't fair either... so deal with it..
Also, I would be afraid to have some of you in charge of the laws because there would be no standards, gays, bi-sexuals, transsexuals, animal lovers, polygamists, etc. would all be okay and have lawful rights to marriage as long as they are "consenting" adults.
There really have to be some standards, and this is just one of them. If you don't like it... move to a country where gay marriage is legal, period.

If you don't like it...move to a country where gay marraige is legal, period.

No thanks, I like my progressive country. How about YOU move because YOU don't like the CHANGES that are taking place? There are countries where it's illegal to be gay, you know. Maybe you can volunteer to round all the gays in that country up and "dispose" of them.

Prayers to Gods and goddessess, human sacrifice, anything goes right?

prayers to Gods and goddessess, human sacrifice, anything goes right?

How sadly uninformed you are.

I know of NO religion that practices human sacrifice--what part of "harm none" and "free will" didn't you catch there?

As far as religion playing a part in politics--well, of course it does. That doesn't mean that the religion with the greatest population gets their way, though. That's what the Constitution is for, and why we have an electoral college, and why laws are made making SURE the state can't promote a particular religion.

I'd be MORE scared to have you in a place of power, honestly. Change is good, as a general rule. We (as humans) don't grow to our greatest potential without change, even change we don't like. As far as standards go--what are yours? That no one be non-Christian, have moonlight dances for their goddess, that families always stay together for the good of the children, even if abuse is involved? Seriously--what are YOUR standards? Should all people living in sin, together without the benefit of marriage be stoned to death for fornication? That still happens in several countries in the world, you know. How about children born out of wedlock be taken from their mothers and given to the state to be place for adoption, so that all of those poor desperate couples longing for a child will finally have a chance at an infant?

You look at greater good over individual rights, and I look at individual rights over the greater good--so long as they do not willfully HARM the greater good.

Your god is all powerful, right? He can probably take care of himself, then. He doesn't need you to crusade for him--if he REALLY hates gays, he can just smite them! Or deny them entrance to heaven, or whatever. Who are YOU to judge what HE wants, hmmm?

I'd rather have my "anything goes, as long as it's not harming anyone" over your "dont' do it because it's EVIL, and I can't even give you a reason why except that god says it is" any day.

well u guys can live in a fantasy world where there is a separation of church and state, but the reality is that religion plays a major part in this country; like it or not. So all you guys can kick and scream because things are not "fair", but taxes aren't fair either... so deal with it..

You might consider the US Constitution a fantasy, but I take it very seriously. I have no prob w/ rel being a 'major part of this country,' but this is not a Christian nation no matter what you've been led to believe (a treaty from the 1800s spells that out distinctly). So making other live by your narrow religious rules is unconstitutional. And what kind of selfishness makes you settle for just living with what's not fair?


Also, I would be afraid to have some of you in charge of the laws because there would be no standards, gays, bi-sexuals, transsexuals, animal lovers, polygamists, etc. would all be okay and have lawful rights to marriage as long as they are "consenting" adults.
There really have to be some standards, and this is just one of them. If you don't like it... move to a country where gay marriage is legal, period.


A standard by whose definition? Yours? Society would not allow many of the things you seem to fear for a variety of reasons - only 1 being religious. And in this country, while the majority rules, there are provisions in the Constitution to prevent majority tyranny.

If you want to live in a theocracy, move to one.

What about the american money. In God We Trust. Is not America founded on Christian principles. Well marriage is a spiritual and religion based communion between one female, and one male. So there is nothing that can change that. There is no grey area here. Marriage is an institution set up through the principles that are religion based. Marriage is for a man and women. Not the same sex. That is always the case and will never change.

I am not against gays, I believe we all have a right to live the way each individual wants to live but as far as having the right to get married. That is a right that they do not have and should never have. They can be together, they can live their lives as they want and be treated like we all want to be treated but marriage is not negotiable.

What about the american money. In God We Trust. Is not America founded on Christian principles.

That motto was added in the 1950s (it's also when 'under God' was added to the Pledge). Before the religious decided to start the myth in earnest that this was a Christian nation, the country's motto was e pluribus unum. Since that changed, we haven't been...

This country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, there was nothing 'Christian' about it.

That motto was added in the 1950s (it's also when 'under God' was added to the Pledge). Before the religious decided to start the myth in earnest that this was a Christian nation, the country's motto was e pluribus unum. Since that changed, we haven't been....

This country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, there was nothing 'Christian' about it.

I looked this up before I found it already posted--nice post, WVHF. I did find out, though, that "In God We Trust" started appearing on coins in the 1860s, which is still several decades after the founding of this country.

Common sense about the greater good is REFLECTED in Christian principles. Just because this country was founded on common sense (like--honor your parents, don't kill people, don't steal, do unto others as they'd do unto you), doesn't mean it was founded as a CHRISTIAN country. In fact, the founding fathers deliberately did NOT make this a Christian country, but one where ALL religion would be welcome.

So--our laws are based on the greater good, not on Christian principles.

Granted, this is from Wiki, so should be taken with a grain of salt, but Jefferson was actually AGAINST the Bible and religion being used in politics

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion)

As far as some of the OTHER founding fathers are concerned--well, some of them WERE good Christians, of various denominations, but some of them were VERY outspoken against religion in general, especially Jefferson and Franklin.

The Founding Fathers Speak Out on God, Religion and the First Amendment (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm)

So--don't tell me that our country was founded on Christianity. It wasn't. The Christian principles used were the same basic principles found in most religions all over the world.

I believe in the Constitution more than I believe in the Bible, and even THAT has been amended to account for the greater good of this country, and of the equality of ALL people in this country. Blacks and women were once thought (and there were supporting Bible stories!) to be less than men, and had fewer freedoms and privileges because of it. Our country is progressive enough to realize that change MUST be made to assure that "All men are created equal", and therefore have equal rights and privileges.

Crede: I don't think you need to point that out. I think it's quite obvious what my beliefs are according to what I post. That's why I post comments, to let others know what I believe.
So you THINK that. No problem with that. But I disagree with the conclusion you draw. Because there is no objective supporting evidence for what you BELIEVE, so i.e. you post what YOU believe, and not what IS !
The question "Is Homosexuality Wrong" refers to the extreme negative influence religion has on the lives of many homo-sexuals.

And so far ( #184 ) I have not seen any proper based argument to support that extreme negative influence.

:rolleyes:

I looked this up before I found it already posted--nice post, WVHF. I did find out, though, that "In God We Trust" started appearing on coins in the 1860s, which is still several decades after the founding of this country.

Common sense about the greater good is REFLECTED in Christian principles. Just because this country was founded on common sense (like--honor your parents, don't kill people, don't steal, do unto others as they'd do unto you), doesn't mean it was founded as a CHRISTIAN country. In fact, the founding fathers deliberately did NOT make this a Christian country, but one where ALL religion would be welcome.

So--our laws are based on the greater good, not on Christian principles.

Granted, this is from Wiki, so should be taken with a grain of salt, but Jefferson was actually AGAINST the Bible and religion being used in politics

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion)

As far as some of the OTHER founding fathers are concerned--well, some of them WERE good Christians, of various denominations, but some of them were VERY outspoken against religion in general, especially Jefferson and Franklin.

The Founding Fathers Speak Out on God, Religion and the First Amendment (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm)

So--don't tell me that our country was founded on Christianity. It wasn't. The Christian principles used were the same basic principles found in most religions all over the world.

I believe in the Constitution more than I believe in the Bible, and even THAT has been amended to account for the greater good of this country, and of the equality of ALL people in this country. Blacks and women were once thought (and there were supporting Bible stories!) to be less than men, and had fewer freedoms and privileges because of it. Our country is progressive enough to realize that change MUST be made to assure that "All men are created equal", and therefore have equal rights and privileges.





The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm)


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...



Off the op topic, but

The founding father's were overwhelmingly Christian. The historical context is that although they were religious, they did not want the government to impose a single state sanctioned religion. Catholics can worship the way they want, protestants can worship the way they wanted, etc... they wanted that right of religious expression [first ] established at the outset.



The founding fathers did not use terms like "we all evolved equally," or "it's just common sense...," or " based on our study of past and present cultutres....." or "it's self evident that we should all just follow the golden rule...." :D

The founding father's were overwhelmingly Christian.
Mainy of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian...

:rolleyes:

"Their Creator" allows each person to believe in whatever creator they like---not the Christian creator.

"Nature's God" probably comes closer to MY religion--as a Wiccan and a pagan and the fact that at least PART of my religion worships nature--than it comes to the Christian's god, though really, in the end, it's again open to interpretation as ANY god one wants to believe in. I mean, if you believe in a god, then you probably believe that that god created nature, right?

And I mean, if you really want to get picky about it, it states that all MEN are created equal--not all mankind, or all men and women, but all MEN. Does that mean that the interpretation of the Declaration is that women are subservient and should go back to being in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant and making their husbands or fathers happy?

Bringing the founding fathers in this argument is BS because the world has changed a great deal from when they were writing the Declaration of Independence. Heck the Dof I says that ALL MEN were created equal... we have changed that. As the world changes so to does society. THANK GOD we do not have the same rules and laws that the founding fathers had when they were writing the Declaration. The scary thing is that they were writing to declare freedom from their oppressor (England), but now the oppressed has become the oppressor.

Bringing the founding fathers in this argument is BS ...
Indeed, specially as "inthebox" started using the founding fathers as argument for an otherwise unsupported wild claim !

;)

[QUOTE=Credendovidis]Mainy of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian...

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE

Did you make a typo here "Mainy"? :rolleyes:

Did you make a typo here "Mainy"?
As I stated before : I too make typing errors. Just as we all do. However not so many as some of those here who's mother tongue is English...

;)

Can we now return to the question " Is Homosexuality Wrong? "

:D

Mainy of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian ....

:rolleyes:

Do you have any objective evidence for this or is this yet another one of your BELIEFS?. lol your unsupported beliefs are aways a bit far fetched.




97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools.

187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible.

Quotes from founding fathers

William Bradford
“The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

John Hancock:• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness…
A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

Samuel Johnston:• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc. may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison
“ We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

James Wilson:
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Supreme Court Justice appointed by George Washington
Spoke 168 times during the Constitutional Convention

"Christianity is part of the common law"
[Sources: James Wilson, Course of Lectures [vol 3, p.122]; and quoted in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg, & R. 393, 403 (1824).]

George Washington:

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

Sassy--Did you read any of the links that I posted?

I guess next time I'll have to just copy and paste as you did. I had linked a page with several quotes from the Founding Fathers that were AGAINST a specific religion, or speaking against the Bible.

Do you have any objective evidence for this or is this yet another one of your BELIEFS? ..lol your beliefs are aways a bit far fetched.




97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools.

187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible.

Quotes from founding fathers

William Bradford
“The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

John Hancock:• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness…
A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

Samuel Johnston:• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison
“ We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

James Wilson:
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Supreme Court Justice appointed by George Washington
Spoke 168 times during the Constitutional Convention

"Christianity is part of the common law"
[Sources: James Wilson, Course of Lectures [vol 3, p.122]; and quoted in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg, & R. 393, 403 (1824).]

George Washington:

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]


These are all wonderful quotes from men that have been dead for 100s of years. And although they were great men, they were speaking of the world they lived in back then. The world that we live in is quite different. Imagine if we stuck with the All MEN are created equal- where would women in today's society be? Certainly not in the running for the presidential nomination.

Times change and it is important that society changes with them.

These are all wonderful quotes from men that have been dead for 100s of years. And although they were great men, they were speaking of the world they lived in back then. The world that we live in is quite different. Imagine if we stuck with the All MEN are created equal- where would women in today's society be? Certainly not in the running for the presidental nomination.

Times change and it is important that society changes with them.

I just quoted them to dispel the outrageous and missleading claims that were being made by some people here. You all were saying the Founding fathers were not Christian.. lol that's a joke.:rolleyes:

Actually, we DIDN'T say the Founding Fathers weren't Christian.

Just that not ALL of them were.

And the MAIN argument was that this country was NOT founded on Christian principles.

And the reason we are this far off topic at this point is that one of the arguments used against homosexuality and allowing gay marriages in this country is that the founding fathers were CHRISTIAN, and that this country was created based on Christian principles.

So... as Tuscany says--it's really not the relevant. I'm just pointing out the reasoning for the side topic to begin with.

I just quoted them to dispell the outrageous and missleading claims that were being made by some people here. You all were saying the Founding fathers were not Christian..lol thats a joke.:rolleyes:
Good so then you agree that society has changed since the declaration. And although very intellegent the founding fathers had no idea what our society would be like in 2008. Therefore, it is realistic that when the founding father's wrote the D of I they could have meant ALL MEN were created equal- man, woman, black, white, gay straight. So now we need to treat all men equal. Case closed.

Whether they were Christian, deist or atheists they did understand the value of considering a persons religious freedoms to be important. If not why are there so many religious statutes and so forth on the government buildings in DC?
Anyway whether the founding fathers were or weren't is only going to end up very off topic.

Actually, we DIDN'T say the Founding Fathers weren't Christian.

Just that not ALL of them were.

And the MAIN argument was that this country was NOT founded on Christian principles.

And the reason we are this far off topic at this point is that one of the arguments used against homosexuality and allowing gay marriages in this country is that the founding fathers were CHRISTIAN, and that this country was created based on Christian principles.

So...as Tuscany says--it's really not the relevant. I'm just pointing out the reasoning for the side topic to begin with.

Thanks for clarifying Synn.

I just quoted them to dispell the outrageous and missleading claims that were being made by some people here. You all were saying the Founding fathers were not Christian..lol thats a joke.:rolleyes:
No, that's not a joke.

As usual you are twisting words, you lie, and you misrepresent what others stated.
Nobody mentioned anything on none of the founding fathers being Christians.

Personally I stated that "many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian"...

Now please prove me wrong, or rectify your statements...

:rolleyes: ;) :D ;) :rolleyes:

yes, The main issue they had was that there should not be one controlling denomination. Like the Church of England, In fact they did not allow freedom of religion during the war, it was not dangerous to be a member of the Church of England, because of the ties to the King. This was the reason for the forming of the a separate Anglican church group in the US.

The early government leaders had issues against some groups like the Mormons.

So we can see that the early government did not believe that there was a completely free expression of religious freedom. But we also see from things like the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building, from the wording of "in God we trust" on all our money, from the starting of Congress with prayer, from most Presidents being sworn in with the bible, from them setting up paid Chaplain positions for our military and in most prisons. And the list goes on. To attempt to deny the major part that christianity played in the forming of our nation, would be impossible, unless one wanted to try and re-write US history. ( which some groups try and do)

I'm not saying that it didn't have a part in forming our country. It had a MAJOR part in forming our country, and in the way our country is STILL being formed.

It is NOT, however, our national religion.

There is absolutely no reason that ONE religion's beliefs should be forced upon the rest of the country via law, especially when the only person anyone has brought up as being hurt by homosexual relationships is God.

I recognize that Christians should not be forced to allow homosexual marriage in their churches. That's against your canon, and I completely agree that no church wedding should be forced.

However--a STATE marriage, one that allows homosexual couples ALL of the legal privileges of heterosexual marriages--SHOULD be allowed, as it is NOT infringing upon any religion.

Again, I believe this to be about discrimination more than about ethics, and I think that putting everyone on the same level is great--even if that means that hetersexual marriages no longer have any of those privileges.

I am willing to bet, though, that most Americans would rather see homosexual marriages get the same privileges than to lose their own--especially that great privilege called "tax cuts".

Of course it is the entire issue of homosexual behavior that I am against,

Since that is now allowed in the US, ** and that is the battle the church lost, the marriage it self is not the real issue, in fact I wish them all the pain and suffering of divorce courts, property settlements, having to pay child support, alimony and all the fun that goes with marriage.
And yes they need the legal support for things like hospital vistis, to have inheritance rights which if this was posted in the legal section, I would support, but this is under religion, and as such, I have to oppose the actual function and activity of the relationship, which is what I object to.

But the real fear, is what we see happening in other places, such as Canada where the state appears to be going in the direction of forcing the churches to do this or risk losing their rights to do marriages there.
They do not have the rights as churches, but churches have a lot of hoops to jump though to be reconsied in Canada.

I would perhaps in fact think that like they do in England have marriage be a state function, and then the people can go and have a service to be blessed in the church.

Interesting Fr.Chuck.

Just to set the record straight, one of the foundations of this great land was the freedom of religion, which means even though Christian tenets may have been behind the moral focus of the fathers, no one can argue that those tenants can be found in many religions, in many forms, and they are not exclusive to just Christianity.

As far as whether homosexuality is right or wrong, under the law it is not. Now your religion may limit you, and your thinking, under the law of the land it is beyond punishment. That simple.

As far as marriage among same sex couples, that's up to the state to sanction, and California is moving in that direction, and over time no doubt others will follow the lead of Massachusetts, and allow, and recognize this union.

I will challegne that California is "moving" they were forced by the court, against the will of the people, If this is how law is suppose to work, perhaps it is time for the people to take their county back, since this would have never been allowed by our founding fathers.
And hopefully California residents will at the next vote, take back the will of the people over the will of a few judges.

But the law of the land is never beyond punishment our nation was founded on the idea that if and when the law is wrong and unjust, it is the right of the people to take over their government. We would not have a US, if the people did not rebell against the law of the land.

If Christians would just get off their rear and actually live their faith, which means to vote by their beleifs, the country would have no choice but to follow their demands. And they have the right to vote their beliefs, just not force a person to have those, but if only pro life political people, if only pro family people could get elected,

Why California's gay-marriage decision could be overturned by voters in November. - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2191525/)




California voters can overturn the decision with a single vote. There is already an initiative on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution and scrap today's ruling: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," it declares.

If Christians would just get off their rear and actually live their faith, which means to vote by their beleifs, the country would have no choice but to follow thier demands.

I don't think that will stop people from seeking to be free.

Without using religion,

Hmmm? Isn't this the "Religious Discussions" forum? Why did you post the question here if you don't want to have a religious discussion?


citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong,

Besides the reasons you discounted above because looking at our very bodies it is obvious that men were made for women and women for men. Same sex activity is obviously unnatural.


why gays should not have the right to marry,

I define marriage as a union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the procreation of children. Matrimony means "office of motherhood".

Obviously, same sex unions can't have children.


and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society.

It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard
tend to bring diseases such as aids.

But again, since this is not a religious question, why not have the mods move it to a more appropriate section of the forum. It is misplaced here.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hmmm? Isn't this the "Religious Discussions" forum? Why did you post the question here if you don't want to have a religious discussion?
If you would quote her entire question the answer to that would be clear. The question was :

"Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society."

There clearly is asked why you BELIEVE the way you do. And with belief being the one and only basis for religion...

:D :D :D :D :D

It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard tend to bring diseases such as aids.

I suppose you would still call AIDS by its old religiously-bigoted term GIRD (or was it GRID?). No type of sexual union "brings" AIDS. It is a communicable disease that can be transmitted to another through sex (but not only sex) - the sharing of bodily fluids, no matter who is doing the sharing.

And again, the children argument comes up.

So... those couples who are married but NOT trying for children should NOT be having sex, right?

Seriously--if you really feel that marriage is for children, then all couples who do not WANT children should be denied marriage, and all those who HAVE children should be forced to marry, right?

And birth control should be thrown out the window, since sex is ONLY for children, and if you're not trying to have a child, you shouldn't be having sex--married or not.

And sex should then stop as soon as either half of the couple's sex organs no longer work, making that little blue pill worthless, since most men who need it are with women past childbearing age anyway. And menopause would be the beginning of the end for all couples. Should one couple lose their capacity for having children (emergency hysterectomy, or something like that), then the couple no longer should have sex, and should make SURE of that by sleeping in separate bedrooms, since marriage is ONLY for children, and well... if you can't have kids, you shouldn't be married.

It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard tend to bring diseases such as aids. Hello again, De Maria:

OMG! Who can possibly argue with ignorance of this magnitude??

excon

Hello again, De Maria:

OMG! Who can possibly argue with ignorance of this magnitude????

excon



I guess you missed the last round or you wouldn't be surprised. "People like me" don't believe in marriage - other people in that class are Attorneys. Attorneys don't believe in marriage either.

That's why I've never been married. Oh, no, wait, I'm wrong. I have.

Also beware - the poster is an expert at posting, waiting for your response, changing the original post - so you're talking to a ghost.

Besides the reasons you discounted above because looking at our very bodies it is obvious that men were made for women and women for men. Same sex activity is obviously unnatural.



I define marriage as a union between man and wife in holy matrimony for the procreation of children. Matrimony means "office of motherhood".

Obviously, same sex unions can't have children.

Wow you are one strong willed woman to only have sex when you wish to procreate. No sex for the pure of enjoyment of sex for you. I am glad that I did not marry my husband for the pure reason of having children. I am glad that I married my husband because he is my best friend, when children come into the picture it will be because our relationship is strong and whole. NOT because we got married. I could have easily had a baby before we were married...

You are wrong- same sex unions can have children. My aunt does...




It would tend to weaken society because their sexual unions, according to what I've heard
tend to bring diseases such as aids.
Oh good lord you have to be kidding me. Can you honestly believe this? Have you done any research on AIDS and HIV? That myth was dispelled DECADES ago!

Actually, we DIDN'T say the Founding Fathers weren't Christian.

Just that not ALL of them were.

And the MAIN argument was that this country was NOT founded on Christian principles.

And the reason we are this far off topic at this point is that one of the arguments used against homosexuality and allowing gay marriages in this country is that the founding fathers were CHRISTIAN, and that this country was created based on Christian principles.

So...as Tuscany says--it's really not the relevant. I'm just pointing out the reasoning for the side topic to begin with.

The country was founded on Christian principles and morals. One nation under God. Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.

Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.Please don't feed the troll.

The country was founded on Christian principles and morals. One nation under God. Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.Hello again, sassy:

Well, ACTUALLY, if the principals ARE religions, they're JEWISH - NOT Christian. We had those principals LOOOOONG before you called 'em YOURS.

So, we are a Jewish Nation based upon Jewish principals. Please pass the lox.

excon

The country was founded on Christian principles and morals. One nation under God. Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.

"Under God" was added to the Pledge in the late 50s for purely religious reasons. It was not there originally and does not belong. T Jefferson acknowledged that even atheists had a right to not believe and were to be accepted as full members of the US. To add that phrase to the pledge is a slap at those who do not believe in God - and to those who believe in more than one.

And freedom of religion is not a 'Christian' principle. Christians have been among those who most abuse folks for not believing as they. (Just ask Jews, witches, wiccans, pagans, atheists, the victims of the Inquisition... )

I think it is unfair for a poor helpless child to be adopted by a couple of Gays. The child doesn't have the choice to grow up in a normal family with a mother and a father. He/she will be forced to have 2 dads and not have the opportunity of experiencing a mother. I just think it's unfair for children to be forced into such abnormal situations..

Hello again, sassy:

Well, ACTUALLY, if the principals ARE religions, they're JEWISH - NOT Christian. We had those principals LOOOOONG before you called 'em YOURS.

So, we are a Jewish Nation based upon Jewish principals. Please pass the lox.

excon

Jewish principle, christian principles what ever you want to call it.. definitely NOT Atheist.

Hello again, sassy:

Cool. Jews like faygeles.

excon

I think it is unfair for a poor helpless child to be adopted by a couple of Gays. The child doesnt have the choice to grow up in a normal family with a mother and a father. He/she will be forced to have 2 dads and not have the oppotunity of experiencing a mother. I just think it's unfair fo children to be forced into such abnormal situations..

So a normal family is a mother and a father. Great so my poor nephew whose father died when he was 2 he will not grow up in a normal family because his father died. He won't have the opportunity to experience the love of a father. How dare his mother force him to live in such an abnormal state... she should just have him adopted by a family with a mother and father. Isn't that right Sassy? Oh no... one of my students is raised by his grandma, only his grandma... he should definitely be adopted because that is ABNORMAL! Of course it is completely normal to him... do we see how subjective normal is yet Sassy?

I guess I am of the belief that a child should be raised in a loving home. I don't care if it is mom and dad, dad and dad, mom and mom or with the grandparents. A loving home is a loving home.

"Under God" was added to the Pledge in the late 50s for purely religious reasons. It was not there originally and does not belong. T Jefferson acknowledged that even atheists had a right to not believe and were to be accepted as full members of the US. To add that phrase to the pledge is a slap at those who do not believe in God - and to those who believe in more than one.

And freedom of religion is not a 'Christian' principle. Christians have been among those who most abuse folks for not believing as they. (Just ask Jews, witches, wiccans, pagans, atheists, the victims of the Inquisition........)

Freedom of religion is a Christian Principle. All nations that are predominantly Christian excersise freedom of religion. Bible teaches free will and to love others. All the so called "Chrisitans" who were doing the above you mentioned were acting out on their own evil because they did not get out of the Bible.

I think it is unfair for a poor helpless child to be adopted by a couple of Gays. The child doesnt have the choice to grow up in a normal family with a mother and a father. He/she will be forced to have 2 dads and not have the oppotunity of experiencing a mother. I just think it's unfair fo children to be forced into such abnormal situations..


Bet you think it's unfair for a poor helpless child to be raised in a single family home, too.

Should we take those kids away from single mothers, or force them to marry the father?

And should we just get rid of divorce, since that deprives kids of living with two parents?

Oooooh! And let's go back to marrying your brother's widow while we're at it, so that no woman is ever single with kids!

The country was founded on Christian principles and morals. One nation under God. Freedom of religion is a Christian principle.
Not correct. "One nation under God" indicates DEISM. "One nation under Jesus Christ" would indicate Christianity. Note that this line was never part of the foundation statement!


Freedom of religion is a Christian Principle.

"Freedom of religion" is CLEARLY a general theist principle. As history has shown so many times : if it was up to Christianity, you would only have "freedom of the Christian religion" and nothing else.


All nations that are predominantly Christian excersise freedom of religion.
Christianity did it's utmost to block that freedom almost everywhere. It was the demand for (secular) democracy and freedom of and from religion that forced Christianity into it's current position. Christianity is JUST one of the major religions. Nothing more.


:D

[QUOTE=Tuscany]So a normal family is a mother and a father. Great so my poor nephew whose father died when he was 2 he will not grow up in a normal family because his father died. He won't have the opportunity to experience the love of a father. How dare his mother force him to live in such an abnormal state... she should just have him adopted by a family with a mother and father. Isn't that right Sassy? Oh no... one of my students is raised by his grandma, only his grandma... he should definitely be adopted because that is ABNORMAL! Of course it is completely normal to him... do we see how subjective normal is yet Sassy?

At least your nephew did not have to grow up in a confusing environment where daddy is making out with daddy. Single parent, grandparent is normal, at least the child is not exposed to the unusual sexual habits of homosexual life style. Look, you don't have to agree with me but if I had a child that I was willing to give away for adoption, I would never give it up to a couple of Gays. That's just my opinion on the matter you don't have to agree and you don't have to convince me that I am wrong to feel that way.

[QUOTE]

At least your nephew did not have to grow up in a confusing environment where daddy is making out with daddy. Single parent is normal, at least the child is not exposed to the homosexual life style. Look, you don't have to agree with me but if I had a child that I was willing to give away for adoption, I would never give it up to a couple of Gays. That's just my opinion on the matter you don't have to agree and you don't have to convince me that I am wrong to feel that way.


Just for the record your definition of normal is abnormal to me.

Single parent, grandparent is normal, atleast the child is not exposed to the unusual sexual habits of homosexual life style.Am I to understand that you have sex in front of your children?? How else would they know the heterosexual sexual habits? That is grounds to have your children removed from you.

Freedom of religion is a Christian Principle. All nations that are predominantly Christian excersise freedom of religion. Bible teaches free will and to love others. All the so called "Chrisitans" who were doing the above you mentioned were acting out on their own evil because they did not get out of the Bible.

Christians believe in ONE GOD> They insist that everyone believe in that same god. That's not freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is that your religion is NOT the reason that you would force your beliefs on an entire country. Rather, it means that regardless whether you feel homosexuality is MORALLY wrong (based on your religion) that you still believe they have the right to be equal to everyone else. That includes marriage.

[
QUOTE=Credendovidis]Not correct. "One nation under God" indicates DEISM. "One nation under Jesus Christ" would indicate Christianity.. Note that this line was never part of the foundation statement!

Lol You wish Credo... Don't you know that Jesus Christ is God? Believe me When they say one nation under God they mean Jehovah. Go back and read the Quotes form the founding fathers. When they talk about God, they are talking about Jehovah God not just some unknown deity..

[QUOTE=sassyT]


Just for the record your definition of normal is abnormal to me.

Like wise...

[QUOTE=sassyT]


Just for the record your definition of normal is abnormal to me.

Likewise...

Hello again, De Maria:

OMG! Who can possibly argue with ignorance of this magnitude????

excon
EX,

Now if a Christian said this to someone like yourself... it would be reported! She is entitled to her beliefs. Tsk tsk... don't make me report you ;)

I think it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong. Period. No more wrong than eating fruit that Adam and Eve were told not to... or telling a lie, or not loving your neighor... but wrong.

It is MY humble opinion but I think that the real question here is... is there any absolute right and wrong? Is there absolute truth? No one wants absolute anymore.. they NEED to believe that as long as they hurt no one.. it is OK. God doesn't think like that. And you can't answer a question like this and leave the Bible out of it. That is what I think.. naah.. that is what I KNOW. Big difference:D

sassyT, Freedom of religion is a Christian Principle.
History tells us that this was not always the case, and much blood was shed before Christians became more civilized. The process is still continuing.
All nations that are predominantly Christian excersise freedom of religion.
Not really accurate, as all the nations of the world have many religions that make up their population. Name one exclusively Christian nation.
Bible teaches free will and to love others.
Love others is not an exclusive Christian bible thing either, but a universal human concept. Many religions embrace that concept and they predate Christianity by centuries.
All the so called "Chrisitans" who were doing the above you mentioned were acting out on their own evil because they did not get out of the Bible.
That can also be said by any, and all, evil people who use God as their excuse to subjugate, destroy, control, and enslave, all those they deem to be different , or enemies of whatever they stand for.

You wish Credo... Dont you know that Jesus Christ is God? Believe me When they say one nation under God they mean Jehovah. go back and read the Quotes form the founding fathers. When they talk about God, they are talking about Jehovah God not just some unknown diety..
Oh, I know that Christians believe that all parts of the Trinity add up to God.
But just "God" is not the property of Christianity. There are many religions based on one God or more Gods.

What you personally mean with "God" - where you refer to Jehovah - is part of your Chrisitan belief. Not with the God in "One Nation Under God".

The Founding Fathers were very clear. They did not mention nor referred to the Christian God at all . Anywhere. Any time.
And where today is referred to "God" it is to a general DEIST God to allow all people of all religions to be included in that "One Nation Under God".

:D

The Founding Fathers were very clear. They did not mention nor referred to the Christian God at all . Anywhere. Any time.
And where today is referred to "God" it is to a general DEIST God to allow all people of all religions to be included in that "One Nation Under God".


Well said!!

I think it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong. Period.

Then forget your free will, just obey. That means don't judge, that's Gods domain, not yours. Your duty is to love, that includes homosexuals. Denying another human the same freedoms and right that you enjoy is a form of judgement.

To deny another what you have, and enjoy, because of who they are, and what they do, is prejudice.

EX,

now if a Christian said this to someone like yourself...it would be reported! She is entitled to her beliefs. tsk tsk...don't make me report you ;)

I think it is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong. Period. No more wrong than eating fruit that Adam and Eve were told not to...or telling a lie, or not loving your neighor... but wrong.

It is MY humble opinion but i think that the real question here is....is there any absolute right and wrong? Is there absolute truth? No one wants absolute anymore..they NEED to believe that as long as they hurt no one..it is ok. God doesn't think like that. And you can't answer a question like this and leave the Bible out of it. That is what i think..naah..that is what i KNOW. big difference:D


I DARE you to report Excon for that. Seriously. Christians say things like that all the time, and most of the time it's just discussed further (as here) rather than being reported. Most of us non-Christians realize that of all religions, Christians are the most fervent about "knowing" that they're right or wrong--and all because THEIR holy book wasn't burned along with them when other religions got touchy about it.

Most Witches and other pagans lost their history and their grimoires when the Christians took ONE LINE from the Bible and went after witches and wise women with a vengeance--because they were different. Should we go back to THOSE days, too? I mean, the Bible says "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". Should I start watching my back, since obviously witchcraft is wrong according to the Bible? Just like, according to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong?

How DOES God think then? Has He appointed YOU to tell us? I mean, if He wants me to change my thinking, maybe He should pop down here and explain what he has against witches, other than that they don't worship Him. I mean, several hundred years of my "sisters" being burned is pretty drastic, don't you think? And if He really felt that way, and allowed it to go on that long--why is it okay to stop now, if you TRULY believe?

THAT is what drives me crazy about the whole Christian Principles thing: the fact that all you have to do is wait around 100 years or so, and a new interpretation of the Bible will prevail, and Christian Principles will change again.

As far as I know, Jesus said to spread the word about him, not to force others to believe in him. If I don't believe in him, I don't believe in his rules, and I should not have to live by them. Christian Principles, my right butt cheek. If we were living by Christian principles in this country, there would be no unwed mothers, no divorce, no hungry, no poor, no hate, people would forgive, there would be no extra-marital affairs, there wouldn't be pornography, etc.

And there's no way that you can tell me that with the majority of this country being Christian that the minority of other religions is causing ALL of these problems.

Look to yourself, first. If you have sinned, you repent, and don't sin again, right? Well, what is intolerance but hatred in the form of fear? You don't have to LIKE what someone else does, you just have to NOT DO IT YOURSELF. And you have to forgive those who trespass against you, or against god. It is not your place to judge them or hate them or belittle them, according to the Bible. It's your place to pray for them and forgive them and still treat them with compassion and love. GOD will judge, says the Bible.

So... if you don't agree with homosexuality--GREAT! Don't do it! If you don't want gay marriage, then go to a church that will not marry gays--but what the church and state do are completely separate. If you don't want your child adopted by gays--GREAT! You can choose your adoptive parents as a birthparent most times. But--because this country is based on the fact that all men are equal, you can not STOP gays from marrying, or adopting, or existing!

I DARE you to report excon for that. Seriously. Christians say things like that all the time, and most of the time it's just discussed further (as here) rather than being reported. Most of us non-Christians realize that of all religions, Christians are the most fervent about "knowing" that they're right or wrong--and all because THEIR holy book wasn't burned along with them when other religions got touchy about it.

Most Witches and other pagans lost their history and their grimoires when the Christians took ONE LINE from the Bible and went after witches and wise women with a vengeance--because they were different. Should we go back to THOSE days, too? I mean, the Bible says "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". Should I start watching my back, since obviously witchcraft is wrong according to the Bible? Just like, according to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong?

How DOES God think then? Has He appointed YOU to tell us? I mean, if He wants me to change my thinking, maybe He should pop down here and explain what he has against witches, other than that they don't worship Him. I mean, several hundred years of my "sisters" being burned is pretty drastic, don't you think? And if He really felt that way, and allowed it to go on that long--why is it okay to stop now, if you TRULY believe?

THAT is what drives me crazy about the whole Christian Principles thing: the fact that all you have to do is wait around 100 years or so, and a new interpretation of the Bible will prevail, and Christian Principles will change again.

As far as I know, Jesus said to spread the word about him, not to force others to believe in him. If I don't believe in him, I don't believe in his rules, and I should not have to live by them. Christian Principles, my right butt cheek. If we were living by Christian principles in this country, there would be no unwed mothers, no divorce, no hungry, no poor, no hate, people would forgive, there would be no extra-marital affairs, there wouldn't be pornography, etc.

And there's no way that you can tell me that with the majority of this country being Christian that the minority of other religions is causing ALL of these problems.

Look to yourself, first. If you have sinned, you repent, and don't sin again, right? Well, what is intolerance but hatred in the form of fear? You don't have to LIKE what someone else does, you just have to NOT DO IT YOURSELF. And you have to forgive those who trespass against you, or against god. It is not your place to judge them or hate them or belittle them, according to the Bible. It's your place to pray for them and forgive them and still treat them with compassion and love. GOD will judge, says the Bible.

So...if you don't agree with homosexuality--GREAT! Don't do it! If you don't want gay marriage, then go to a church that will not marry gays--but what the church and state do are completely separate. If you don't want your child adopted by gays--GREAT! You can choose your adoptive parents as a birthparent most times. But--because this country is based on the fact that all men are equal, you can not STOP gays from marrying, or adopting, or existing!

A standing ovation for Synn! Well said, well thought out, beautifully written.

Freedom of religion is a Christian Principle. All nations that are predominantly Christian excersise freedom of religion. Bible teaches free will and to love others. All the so called "Chrisitans" who were doing the above you mentioned were acting out on their own evil because they did not get out of the Bible.


On the contrary. All those atrocities and the repression were taken, by Christians, from their Bibles - the same one you use (tho some of the earlier ones were the Bible before the King James version). Or are you saying that the Old Testament isn't part of your Bible? And bigotry against wiccans and atheists by Christians is alive and well today.

[

lol You wish Credo... Dont you know that Jesus Christ is God? Believe me When they say one nation under God they mean Jehovah. go back and read the Quotes form the founding fathers. When they talk about God, they are talking about Jehovah God not just some unknown diety..

"Jehova God" (?) Only Christians think Jehovah and Jesus are one. Unfortunately, it was the Christians who convinced Pres Eisenhower to add "under God" to the pledge. They were not being generous of thought, they were staking a claim. Wrongly.

On the contrary. All those atrocities and the repression were taken, by Christians, from their Bibles - the same one you use (tho some of the earlier ones were the Bible before the King James version). Or are you saying that the Old Testament isn't part of your Bible? And bigotry against wiccans and atheists by Christians is alive and well today.

Please don't just make unsupported claims, please give me a verse from either the Old or the New testament that mandates or gives Christians the instruction to hate, kill or harm witches, Jews, Ahtiest?

Exodus 22:18

A standing ovation for Synn! Well said, well thought out, beautifully written.

Ditto

If you would quote her entire question the answer to that would be clear. The question was :

"Without using religion, citing scripture, or bringing god into the equation, please explain why you believe that homosexuality is wrong, why gays should not have the right to marry, and what kind of impact you feel homosexuality has on society."

There clearly is asked why you BELIEVE the way you do. And with belief being the one and only basis for religion ......

:D :D :D :D :D

Obviously you can't handle the arguments I provided or you would have tried.

[QUOTE=WVHiflyer]"Jehova God" (?) Only Christians think Jehovah and Jesus are one.

Well duh, the framers of the constitution were predominantly Christians.


Unfortunately, it was the Christians who convinced Pres Eisenhower to add "under God" to the pledge. They were not being generous of thought, they were staking a claim. Wrongly.

Then you should be saying "unfortunately the Country was founded by Christians"
Of the 55 colonial delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 52 were members of Christian churches.
James Madison said..
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

There is no doubt about it; America was founded by Christians and the U. S. Constitution was based upon the eternal laws of God as revealed in the Bible. To think that the Ten Commandments are not historically relevant to the foundations of the American legal system is preposterous.

Obviously you can't handle the arguments I provided or you would have tried.

The arguments that you provided were that the gay community spreads AIDS (a myth) and that sex is made strictly for the means of reproduction.

AIDS can be found in every community gay straight or otherwise. Your justification shows ingnorance to the facts found since the early 80's.

I applaud you if you only have sex as a means to reproduce. Personally, I use sex as an expression of love. THe child that I conceive is a child conceived in that love. Sex is so much more than a way to reproduce.

I suppose you would still call AIDS by its old religiously-bigoted term GIRD (or was it GRID?).

I never heard of that term. And the OP has forbidden religious reasons so keep your anti-religious bigotry to yourself.


No type of sexual union "brings" AIDS.

Are you certain?


It is a communicable disease that can be transmitted to another through sex

So sexual union does bring "aids".


(but not only sex) - the sharing of bodily fluids, no matter who is doing the sharing.

And which group is predominantly afflicted by this disease?

... HIV/AIDS has predominantly afflicted specific population groups (i.e.,. Male homosexuals and intravenous drug users)...
Fletcher.tufts.edu/praxis/archives/xxii/gonzalez.pdf

Sincerely,

De Maria

Exodus 22:18

According to versions of the Bible in the original languages in pre-King James versions, it translates more closely to "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". Poisoning was a huge problem at the time. King James was a huge believer in the occult. The play Macbeth was written specifically for him by Shakespeare based on James's interests. In the King James version, the word was translated inadvertently to "witch".


Do you have any that say we should kill or harm athiests or Jews?