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.
|
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChihuahuaMomma
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!
Hello Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Rush Limprod. And, Bill O'Reilly too. THEY know! So, there.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 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".Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by simoneaugie
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
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.
The question is named : "Why is Homosexuality Wrong?".Quote:
Originally Posted by margog85
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
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
[QUOTE=Fr_Chuck]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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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-Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
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.
LOL... Now I only have to decide who's butt I am going to kick...Quote:
Originally Posted by margog85
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by margog85
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.
Odd that this is in a "religious" thread, as mentioned by others, but that little oddity notwithstanding:Quote:
Originally Posted by margog85
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.
Got off on an irrelevant soapbox, save the world, global warming, humanity is bad, Ehrlichian/Malthusian, tangent there, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by MARGOG85
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!
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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MARGOG85
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
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 PM. |