DescentBB

Foil wrote:As a Christian my faith doesn't support the homosexual lifestyle.

How disgustingly innocuous.

tunnelcat wrote:By the way, we already may have had a gay president in the past, but it's only rumored and many people get mad if it's even mentioned. Can you say Abraham Lincoln?

True, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were others too. I think a better worded poll would ask if we will ever see an *openly* gay president.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...or do you believe your homo friends...

Do you talk to your creator with those lips?

:: Yawn. :: I finally make it to the end of this unjustifiably tedious and lengthy thread, and now I've almost forgotten what I planned on posting. Ah, yes.

It's been my understanding that Prop 8 did not ban gay marriage, per se. It merely restricts the definition of marriage, and in California alone.

The California Constitution wrote:Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Ever wonder what happened to the days when if someone called you a bad name, you sucked it up, shrugged it off and dealt with it, instead of acting like a little bee itch and complaining because your "feelings got hurt"? Jeez. =/

EDIT: Oh yeah... I voted "no" on this poll, but only because I seriously doubt this country will survive long enough to see a gay president. We're killing ourselves slowly with all of this BS.

<----- wonders where shaktazuki go to.

Behemoth wrote:I remember when people were voting for bush they were all talking a storm of how "He's so christian, he'll ban abortion and gay marriage and take care of this country the way it should be"
Then he goes and puts us so deep in a cycle of conflict with other nations and even our past allied nations that it'll be a miracle if we get even half of what we lost back within the next 10-20 years... That is, IF we're not destroyed by that huge meteor in 2012 /endsarcasm ;P

I've heard so many people predicting major occurrences (Harold Camping Christ returns May 11, 2011; another Christian who claims America will be destroyed really soon; now an asteroid). Good thing I know where I'm going when I die.

Will Robinson wrote:If that letter is evidence of how easily Canadians are manipulated into murder-mode then you all need to quit making jokes about Americans right away!

If you can't see it, and seeing the court decision doesn't help you see it.. well there's no hope for you anymore.

ST: i just showed you that LETTER(yes it's called a LETTER, not an article. Look up the definition of the word article) is hate speech and you continue to use it like the bigot that you are. on top of that, you decide to blame us like it's our fault, like we're trying to stifle free speech (another load of BS). Go join the phelps-roper group. you'd fit right in. Make sure you hold up their sign nice and high so we can see who you are.

tunnelcat wrote:What would people's opinion be concerning gay marriage if it were proven scientifically that homosexuality was NOT a choice?

exactly the same. it doesn't matter how much it's proven, fundies will talk about how being gay is a choice for hundreds of years. look at how long it took the hard line group of christians to realize the earth was round... or that slavery was bad.

yay, got the error aswell.

tunnelcat wrote:What would be wrong with a gay president anyway?

Richard Simmons?

Andrew Sullivan? Doesn't fit the effeminate gay sterotype does he.

Got the posting error today as well yesterday. Just ignored it, posted OK. Here's what the error message says:

Couldn't get mail server response codes

DEBUG MODE

Line : 116
File : smtp.php

Foil wrote:While such legislation is well-meaning, censorship is just a freakishly bad idea. The last thing we need is some government agent or agency stepping into a debate and trying to make judgements about the religious content."

Who ever said it was well meaning in the first place?

Foil wrote:implying "the homosexual agenda" is some kind of evil conspiracy to infringe on our Christian rights and corrupt our children, and that their fight for legal rights is just some kind of cover

It doesn't take a mastermind to want to fight back, That's just human nature. I think you're missing a crucial point in this foil, The homosexual agenda is backed up by people, I am a person, You are a person and we all have failing points, or stumbling blocks if you will.
I don't doubt for a minute that while not being the actual BASIS for their whole movement towards pro-gay rights, They do have an antichristian sentiment somewhere within their system of defense.
For me to think otherwise would seem ignorant or narrow-minded.

tunnelcat wrote:What would people's opinion be concerning gay marriage if it were proven scientifically that homosexuality was NOT a choice?

Let's please not get into this, That would be the same as me asking you all if you think someone with a mental retardation issue should run for congress or the nobel prize.

tunnelcat wrote:When should the Bible be used as a base for law in this country?

Last i heard that was THE basis of western culture laws.

tunnelcat wrote:As far as I'm concerned, since I don't consider myself a Christian, the Bible is outdated, outmoded and the last place I'd go for advice concerning rights in a modern pluralistic society that supposedly allows freedom for ALL religions, even Mormonism and Scientology.

The bible is relevant as much as any textbook regarding life in general today, If you question that, then you should also question where you got your morality standard from, Your parents didn't teach you not to murder or steal or rape people without them having a certain moral standard to hold themselves accountable too, So your anti-bible spin is worthless, That being said, your reference towards scientology as an equal resource is sad and unwitted at best.

tunnelcat wrote:All they want in life is equality in our society and to be treated as human beings, not some loathsome pests to be stomped on over and over using unsympathetic religious reasons to demean and condem the way they live.

Martyr! Martyr! Martyr!

I'll ask a question of my own then, In the possible chance in the future we DO see less and less government limitations of sexual orientation/preference laws, How would you feel if opening up freedoms for homosexuals gives ground to allow other things, (I.E Zoophilia, Necrophilia, etc..)?

Behemoth wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What would people's opinion be concerning gay marriage if it were proven scientifically that homosexuality was NOT a choice?

Let's please not get into this, That would be the same as me asking you all if you think someone with a mental retardation issue should run for congress or the nobel prize.

Last time I looked, the DSM-IV no longer lists homosexuality as a mental illness, so that shouldn't interfere with a gay person becoming a leader of our country.

Behemoth wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:When should the Bible be used as a base for law in this country?

Last i heard that was THE basis of western culture laws.

tunnelcat wrote:As far as I'm concerned, since I don't consider myself a Christian, the Bible is outdated, outmoded and the last place I'd go for advice concerning rights in a modern pluralistic society that supposedly allows freedom for ALL religions, even Mormonism and Scientology.

The bible is relevant as much as any textbook regarding life in general today, If you question that, then you should also question where you got your morality standard from, Your parents didn't teach you not to murder or steal or rape people without them having a certain moral standard to hold themselves accountable too, So your anti-bible spin is worthless, That being said, your reference towards scientology as an equal resource is sad and unwitted at best.

As far as I'm concerned, the selective use of the Bible for our moral laws has a few speedbumps. There are good points and bad points that have been used in the past or are presently being used in modern culture. But it's unfortunately vastly outdated for modern times, has an iffy and possibly tainted translation done during a dark period of human history full of superstition and fear, so we can't discern some of the original Hebrew intent of many of the passages, is full of misogyny (yes, the rape of women too) and even justifies slavery, antisemitism (New Testament) and separation of the races. You either believe all the Biblical passages or none at all to be true to it, you can't pick and choose. If most of the people in the U.S were true believers and enforcers of the Bible, modern religions like Mormonism and Scientology (to name a few) would be banned or outlawed as heresy, slavery would still be legal and wives would be owned by their husbands as property. In fact, the Gospel of St. Thomas is considered heresy by the Catholic Church but it may be an original part from the Bible, scholars are still debating it. More picking and choosing sections to match someone's point of view for convenience or worse, power.

Behemoth wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:All they want in life is equality in our society and to be treated as human beings, not some loathsome pests to be stomped on over and over using unsympathetic religious reasons to demean and condem the way they live.

Martyr! Martyr! Martyr!

I'll ask a question of my own then, In the possible chance in the future we DO see less and less government limitations of sexual orientation/preference laws, How would you feel if opening up freedoms for homosexuals gives ground to allow other things, (I.E Zoophilia, Necrophilia, etc..)?

OMG! The slippery slope argument. Right off the bat you're using sex acts to justify your argument! Gays are not dead people or animals. They are human beings that want to live as loving couples and all the dirty-minded bigots can think of is the sex act! For crying out loud, when you see a male and female couple walking down the street, you don't think about what they do in bed do you? Of course not! All you see is a loving couple. But brother, if you see two males or two females walking hand in hand together, all you think about is what sex they are having. GIVE ME A BREAK! Last I heard, the bedroom is private! Get your mind out of the gutter, it's about love and societal equality, not sex, with gay marriage. Maybe if you knew some gay people and talked with them, you might learn what goes on in their lives, you would see the pain and hatred they put up with every day, all based on old religion, stereotypes, loathing and bigotry. I have two very close friends that are gay, so I know full well what they go through everyday and they surely aren't denigrates, mentally challenged or evil.

tunnelcat wrote:Last time I looked, the DSM-IV no longer lists homosexuality as a mental illness, so that shouldn't interfere with a gay person becoming a leader of our country."

Then Why did you ask us if our opinion would change if it were "Scientifically proven" that it's not a choice?
Are you trying to contradict yourself? Or are you saying you have a right to use two opinions seperately and we don't?

tunnelcat wrote:"As far as I'm concerned, the selective use of the Bible for our moral laws has a few speedbumps. There are good points and bad points that have been used in the past or are presently being used in modern culture. But it's unfortunately vastly outdated for modern times"

So you're saying that we should be using an updated set of morals based on YOUR opinion for the application and creation of new laws?

tunnelcat wrote:is full of misogyny (yes, the rape of women too)"

Comdemned by our laws which,oh wow! Were based on biblical laws too.

tunnelcat wrote:and even justifies slavery"

Slavery is still going on in other countries, People used to take care of their slaves, Pay for their education, and even house them. While the system is not directly applied in our society today, Condemning it as a failed system is misleading considering most of the great world powers (Egypt, Assyria, Rome, and even in the dark ages) had slavery, it's just part of history.

tunnelcat wrote:,antisemitism (New Testament)"

Wrong, the new testament never condoned Anti-semitism.

tunnelcat wrote:and separation of the races."

Your point?

tunnelcat wrote: OMG! The slippery slope argument. Right off the bat you're using sex acts to justify your argument! Gays are not dead people or animals. They are human beings that want to live as loving couples and all the dirty-minded bigots can think of is the sex act! For crying out loud, when you see a male and female couple walking down the street, you don't think about what they do in bed do you? Of course not! All you see is a loving couple. But brother, if you see two males or two females walking hand in hand together, all you think about is what sex they are having. GIVE ME A BREAK! Last I heard, the bedroom is private! Get your mind out of the gutter, it's about love and societal equality, not sex, with gay marriage. Maybe if you knew some gay people and talked with them, you might learn what goes on in their lives, you would see the pain and hatred they put up with every day, all based on old religion, stereotypes, loathing and bigotry. I have two very close friends that are gay, so I know full well what they go through everyday and they surely aren't denigrates, mentally challenged or evil.

You're right the bedroom is private SO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.
My tax dollars should not be spent allowing homosexuals to have the same rights as healthy people in society, Bigoted as that sounds my morals (and the majority of America's while i'm at it) Don't naturally tell me "Hey, it's okay to sleep with another man if you want too, you should love whoever, whatever and whenever you want"
No, my morals tell me that with love also comes responsibility, and sexual love is to promote healthy relationships between the opposite sex to nurture procreation, That's all there is to it, No gray lines no nothing.
I'm not telling anyone to be straight, gay, bi, lesbian or even to play with rover the dog, What i am saying is homosexuality is a mental delinquency which should not have any place in our courts and should ESPECIALLY not even be considered equal to heterosexuality.

Let me play another example for you if i may though, You wouldn't want to see a man and a woman having sex in the middle of the street would you?
Naturally your first response would be no, Why is that? because you have a value/moral system built into your brain from birth telling you these things are wrong, Just like you know it's not okay to run around with a chainsaw tearing people to shreds whenever you want to.

If the gay community wants equal rights, then i say people who are into bestiality have no less right to challenge their "rights" in a court of law.

Behemoth wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Last time I looked, the DSM-IV no longer lists homosexuality as a mental illness, so that shouldn't interfere with a gay person becoming a leader of our country."

Then Why did you ask us if our opinion would change if it were "Scientifically proven" that it's not a choice?
Are you trying to contradict yourself? Or are you saying you have a right to use two opinions seperately and we don't?

I don't understand what you're trying to say is contradictory. Do you think that being gay not being a choice contradicts with it not being a mental illness? If so, I see no reason to think this. I can think of all sorts of things that I was born with that were not choices but that are also not mental illnesses!

Behemoth wrote:Last i heard that was THE basis of western culture laws.

Behemoth wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:is full of misogyny (yes, the rape of women too)"

Comdemned by our laws which,oh wow! Were based on biblical laws too.

Is "last I heard" a fancy way of getting to avoid presenting evidence? I'm not doubting the historical influence of the Bible in lawmaking. But since countries that preceded the Bible (Babylon and the the Code of Hammurabi) or that were not influenced by the Bible (early Greece, Rome, or Eastern countries) outlawed the same sorts of things--murder, theft, rape, etc., the Bible's importance in our outlawing the most important stuff seems dubious. In fact, in cases where it has had a strong influence, such as in outlawing sodomy, these laws have since been found unconstitutional in many states!

Behemoth wrote:If the gay community wants equal rights, then i say people who are into bestiality have no less right to challenge their "rights" in a court of law.

They do have an equal right to challenge their rights in a court of law. But they won't get very far in the court system, since animals cannot legally agree to legal contracts, which is essentially what marriage boils down to.

You're claiming that the New Testament is anti-semitic, tunnelcat? You've been spewing unfounded claims since you came in here, but I'm inclined to call you on this particular one right now. Show us.

jeff250 wrote:I don't understand what you're trying to say is contradictory. Do you think that being gay not being a choice contradicts with it not being a mental illness? If so, I see no reason to think this. I can think of all sorts of things that I was born with that were not choices but that are also not mental illnesses!

I was referring to his earlier question to us that if it was scientifcally proven that a gay person is born gay if that would change our opinion on it.
If it IS scientifically proven, Why are you trying to use words to cover it up and sweep it away as a "character flaw" or something like that?
I must have misunderstood, First he went from talking about science proving this and that and then goes to something else altogether that states homosexuality as not being listed as a mental illness, I guess science hasn't proved anything yet?

jeff250 wrote:Is "last I heard" a fancy way of getting to avoid presenting evidence? I'm not doubting the historical influence of the Bible in lawmaking. But since countries that preceded the Bible (Babylon and the the Code of Hammurabi) or that were not influenced by the Bible (early Greece, Rome, or Eastern countries) outlawed the same sorts of things--murder, theft, rape, etc., the Bible's importance in our outlawing the most important stuff seems dubious. In fact, in cases where it has had a strong influence, such as in outlawing sodomy, these laws have since been found unconstitutional in many states!

What i said about the foundation of our western laws really has no bearing on this debate whatsoever anyways, But i said that because that's what i've heard, To be honest i have better things to do with my time than research who said this and that just to prove you wrong.

As for that "Proven unconstitutional" remark, It's no use getting into an argument of how incompetent the supreme justices are these days, so i'll just say that they have done a bad job interpretting the constitution within the past 10-20 years.
Funny this is supposed to be a democracy, yet we have things like that decided by only a handful of people, That's not very democratic in my opinion, And if you say "if you want something go out and vote for it" they don't give you the choices you actually want, just the ones they're comfortable with you dealing with.

jeff250 wrote:They do have an equal right to challenge their rights in a court of law. But they won't get very far in the court system, since animals cannot legally agree to legal contracts, which is essentially what marriage boils down to

So i suppose you're saying if we could communicate properly with animals we should be allowed to marry them too, right?
And marriage is supposed to be more than just a legally binding contract, Statements like that make me wonder how far off people have gotten over the years.

Marriage should be more than love, or legal binding, yada yada yada.
It's basically a social statement telling other people this is the mate i have chosen, we love each other and plan on spending our lives together, When you dilute to just something the government empowers you to call yourself you're taking alot away.

Behemoth wrote:To be honest i have better things to do with my time than research who said this and that just to prove you wrong.

Weak dodge.

Behemoth wrote:And marriage is supposed to be more than just a legally binding contract, Statements like that make me wonder how far off people have gotten over the years.

Although a contract may not be sufficient for explaining marriage, it certainly is a necessary component.

Behemoth wrote:So i suppose you're saying if we could communicate properly with animals we should be allowed to marry them too, right?

No. Animals just don't have the mental faculties. They can't have a "meeting of minds" to agree to marriage. The point is that someone can consistently think that gays have the right to marry and think that people do not have the right to marry animals, since there are good reasons to think that people do not have the right to marry animals that are independent of the gay marriage issue. To argue that allowing one implies allowing the other is making a slippery slope argument.

I don't know how you can so calmly argue against the animal argument. That one just lights me up.

Wow, this thread is going in a lot of directions. I have no interest in pursuing all of them at present, but here are a few:

1) I personally would have no problem with electing a gay president. (Cue \"WTF?\" from half of the audience.) Homosexuality isn't some magical thing that destroys a person's ability to make good policy. It's not some magical thing that makes a person unable to reason. It's just a form of sexuality -- one that I don't think is \"right\", but it doesn't preclude someone from being a competent leader.

(aside) Sexuality is a complex thing which is neither \"chosen\" nor \"inborn\"; it's an appetite that develops and changes over time depending on natural inclination as well as how it's fed. Everyone who's had a long-term sexual relationship has some experience with this. The largest twin studies show it as well. And you can see it from the existence of ex-gays, ex-ex-gays, people who have developed or discarded various fetishes, people who can't seem to overcome sexual desires they dislike, etc. (even more aside) I personally believe God desires for people to feed their sexuality in a very specific way, developing a strong long-term bond with their opposite-sex spouse. But I don't expect people who don't follow God in general to be beholden to Him in this specific case, nor do I think our laws should impose such a thing.

2) One of the things I dislike about much of the left-wing thinking on gay marriage is the idea that it's ENTIRELY a question of \"rights\". While shaktazuki was incorrect in declaring the \"whole point\" of the gay rights movement, he was correct to note that ONE of the reasons for pushing for gay marriage is social/cultural -- it's an attempt to mainstream homosexuality and marginalize those groups that have a problem with it. If such a thing does happen, it should be because culture/society has reached that point naturally, not because the courts declared it from on high.

3) I've come around to a solution I think I first heard from Testiculese: the government shouldn't recognize \"marriage\" in the first place. That allows us to separate the \"rights\" question from the \"social\" question. The government should allow consenting adults, along with their dependents, to form a family and gain all of the associated legal and property rights -- whether gay, straight, sexually involved, or not (so, for example, someone taking care of his elderly mother could include her as \"family\".) In this case, there's no reason to limit it to two people (but adding someone to a family should require the consent of all.) And there's no reason for the government, or anybody, to worry about who is having sex with who else.

4) I don't share the same fear shaktazuki has over \"hate speech\". This isn't Canada; this is the United States of America. This is a nation where, yes, it is legally OK to walk around with a shirt or a sign that says \"I hate white people\" or \"Jews are the scum of the earth\" or \"God hates fags\" or \"Republicans are losers\". It's perfectly legal as long as you're not actually calling for violence against a particular group of people. I think that's a good thing, and I think it's pretty obvious that legalizing gay marriage won't change that.

Lothar wrote:3) I've come around to a solution I think I first heard from Testiculese: the government shouldn't recognize "marriage" in the first place. That allows us to separate the "rights" question from the "social" question. The government should allow consenting adults, along with their dependents, to form a family and gain all of the associated legal and property rights -- whether gay, straight, sexually involved, or not (so, for example, someone taking care of his elderly mother could include her as "family".) In this case, there's no reason to limit it to two people (but adding someone to a family should require the consent of all.) And there's no reason for the government, or anybody, to worry about who is having sex with who else.

Ah, I'd forgotten about that idea! I like it.

...though I wonder if it would just end up deferring the problem. It wouldn't evoke as much emotion, but the argument could still surround whatever status the government uses to distinguish "couplehood" (e.g. people who file taxes as a couple, etc.).

Foil wrote:the argument could still surround whatever status the government uses to distinguish "couplehood"

The government shouldn't require any "status" beyond being consenting adults who aren't separately coupled to anyone else. Same sex, different sex, already related, best friends who live together and have no sexual interest in each other whatsoever, multiple people jointly entering the contract, who cares.

(It could also be made fairly straightforward to break the contract, and eliminate the convoluted divorce stuff we currently have. Sign papers dissolving that coupling, which include fairly straightforward property and custody laws based on the original contract, and you're done.)

I've always liked the 'get governemnt out completly' idea. But I can see the extremes on both sides hating it.

Some conservatives like it being official that the gay union is \"less\" then the hetero one. And some liberals want it to be official that that the unions are indeed equal.

As much as I like the idea, it wont ever happen.

Gooberman wrote:...Some conservatives like it being official that the gay union is "less" then the hetero one. And some liberals want it to be official that that the unions are indeed equal.

As much as I like the idea, it wont ever happen.

Well, I'm a liberal who considers a gay union less that a hetero one. I want, and will fight for, gays and lesbians to have a "civil partnership" with all the rights of a heterosexual "civil union" except one. I don't want partnerships to have the right to adopt children. I understand that in some cases a child could be involved but that would be the exception.

Gays and lesbians have to realize that their relationship is an abnormal one and a child should not be included.

Bee

I like the idea of getting government out of marriage, but that is too drastic of a thing for this society. We have to slowly work our way there (the world didn't go from dictatorship to democracy in one day after all)

Bet51987 wrote:I don't want partnerships to have the right to adopt children. I understand that in some cases a child could be involved but that would be the exception.

Gays and lesbians have to realize that their relationship is an abnormal one and a child should not be included.

Why? I believe you used the argument that the children may be mentally abused by their peers (but I could be mistaken), but I'd say having a family would beat being in an adoption center any day. Otherwise, they can be just as capable parents as two straight ones.

Dakatsu wrote: Why? I believe you used the argument that the children may be mentally abused by their peers (but I could be mistaken

You're not mistaken and they will most definitely be.

Bee

Dedman wrote:<----- wonders where shaktazuki go to.

He was defeated by Ferno.

Bee

Lol, on the “Animals can’t get married because they can’t give permission by signing a contract” (para) But you can eat them without permission.

Lothar wrote:the government shouldn't recognize "marriage" in the first place.

Yes! The solution to this problem is not MORE government, but less. Lets take the "Free Speech" fear as an example. The "Hate Speech" laws in Canada are VERY disturbing. And there HAVE been movements to get similar laws passed in the US. They have not gained much ground so far, but that could always change. BUT, when conservatives who fear this push for constitutional amendments to further define marriage, they are establishing yet MORE precedent that the government should take care of these kinds of issues with legal action. Which is exactly the problem we are trying to prevent.

Prop 8 passed. But every year, undeniably, the social acceptance of homosexuality grows. It's entirely reasonable to assume that in the not very distant future, the majority will be on the other side of this issue. When the majority shifts, they will pass a new proposition that reverses prop 8. And its quite possible they will add in regulations against "Hate Speech" as a retaliatory measure. They are VERY likely to REQUIRE that anyone who performs marriages has to marry homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.

If instead of passing prop 8 we had passed a law getting the government OUT of the marriage business and treating ALL marriages as civil unions, then there would be no temptation to legally redefine marriage again in the future, and less temptation to interfere with our rights of free choice and free speech.

Those who love religious liberty and free speech should NOT be pushing for further government involvement in issues that are essentially religious. They should be pushing for LESS.

Bettina wrote:Gays and lesbians have to realize that their relationship is an abnormal one and a child should not be included

Who decides what is abnormal? Should interracial couples be allowed to adopt? Richard Dawkins says that raising a child Christian is child abuse.

I have a cousin-in-law who is in a permanent lesbian relationship. (I'm just going to call her my cousin through the rest of this because cousin-in-law is an extremely awkward term and the fact that she is my wife's blood cousin instead of mine is really not relevant. She's MY family and has been for over 20 years)

I disagree with my cousin on this issue. Let me be absolutely clear, I believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity as sin. BUT, I don't see it as worse than any other sexual sin. I have heterosexual friends and family who are in semi-permanent sexual relationships without getting married. I think that is a sin as well. It doesn't mean I can't love them. (Or them me, I'm certain some of them believe that some of the things *I* do are sinful, and they may even be right)

My lesbian cousin and her partner chose to have two children through artificial insemination. My cousin's partner had the children, my cousin adopted them. These children are part of my family just as much as the children of any of my other cousins. Actually, more so than some of the others since I have more contact with them.

I know you mean well Bettina. I know you are trying to protect the children, and I AGREE with you to the degree that I think it is GENERALLY better for children to be raised with two parents of opposite sex.

But, no ifs ands or buts, if the government tried to take away my cousin's children because her relationship was "abnormal", I would not only protest, I'd be quite willing to take up arms and lay down my life to defend her, her wife, and their children. Their parents relationship is indeed "abnormal", but those kids have a good home, and one thats a whole heck of a lot better than being bounced between institutions and foster families.

Bet51987 wrote:

Dakatsu wrote: Why? I believe you used the argument that the children may be mentally abused by their peers (but I could be mistaken

You're not mistaken and they will most definitely be.

Bee

They will be, but I think they are better off being in an environment with a family. If worse comes to worse, the kid can be removed from the parents if the abuse is too severe, but there is never a way to stop it from happening.

When I was younger, I got teased because of my lisp I had, and it lasted until it went away. I've been teased for having long hair, for being emotional, for acne, for having crushes on certain people. Kids can be assholes, plain and simple, and there is a high chance that someone could tease them. But I'd rather be teased for my gay parents than stay in an adoption center, without someone to raise me.

And to whoever may bring up gay parents are not as capable as two straight ones, what about kids with only one parent? I think my girlfriend (whose father left at a young age) turned out great, if not better than me, so I think the argument that two people cannot raise a child is total crap.

The whole issue of govt. acceptance of gay marriage beyond morality, is the granting of spousal rights and benefits. If the govt. says gay marriage's are binding then the onus of the benefit issue lies directly on a employer. Now you force the owner of a business who may be strongly opposed to gay marriages, to now be forced to supply health and retirement benefits to someone the owner may not want to. So in a sense the whole prop issue is really about benefits and nothing about living together in a sanctified state.

Morality is the heart of the issue. If we're willing to set aside the morality in order to deal with it on a purely logistical basis, then homosexuality has already won the argument. None of you are even able to see the issue for what it is anymore. You've already lost (if you're even still found on the opposing side), because the homosexual movement has been able to frame the debate, and without any effective resistance. They've changed reality, and now you are operating in a reality that is stacked against you, and guarantees them the victory they're after, whether you see them as victors or not. What I'm saying is that you are rats in their maze, and that's not an exaggeration.

Thorne, I disagree on the morality thing. I seem to recall early in the gay movement, the whole issue revolved around getting benefits for their partners. Perhaps now gays have become more creative by posing the whole issue as one of morality, in the end they still want benefits. While the govt/courts may be able to legalize their relationships, the morality issue can not be legislated as shown by the CA prop 8 vote.

Kilarin wrote: Who decides what is abnormal? Should interracial couples be allowed to adopt? Richard Dawkins says that raising a child Christian is child abuse.

Normal is what brought you into this world. Normal is any union which has the potential of creating a new life. Not a must, but a potential.

Anthing else is abnormal.

Bee

Bettina wrote:Normal is any union which has the potential of creating a new life. Not a must, but a potential.

As I said, I agree with you about homosexual couples not being ideal for raising children, but this definition of normal has some risks involved. For instance, it would specifically forbid provenly sterile couples from adopting. It would forbid a single aunt from adopting her niece, requiring that the kid be placed in an institution or fostered out to strangers.


Three questions:

1: Would you recommend that my cousins children be taken away from her and placed into heterosexual foster homes?

2: Do you think the children would have been better off if she had not been allowed to adopt them in the first place.

3: Would you have forbidden my cousins partner from having children in the first place?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Morality is the heart of the issue.

The issue of whether or not homosexual activity is wrong is certainly a Moral one. But then that is a redundant statement.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: If we're willing to set aside the morality in order to deal with it on a purely logistical basis, then homosexuality has already won the argument

I need some further clarification here. What do you mean by dealing with it on a "purely logistical basis" ? And what argument are they winning. Is the issue you are addressing "homosexual marriage" or something else?

Sergeant Thorne wrote: None of you are even able to see the issue for what it is anymore.

Homosexual activity is wrong. Throwing rocks at homosexuals is also wrong. Worrying about whether or not two people of the same sex are legally sharing property in the eyes of the law is a waste of time and counter productive and has nothing to do with the morality of the issue.

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:Normal is any union which has the potential of creating a new life. Not a must, but a potential.

As I said, I agree with you about homosexual couples not being ideal for raising children, but this definition of normal has some risks involved. For instance, it would specifically forbid provenly sterile couples from adopting. It would forbid a single aunt from adopting her niece, requiring that the kid be placed in an institution or fostered out to strangers.

It would forbid every union that cannot produce a child, including people who are celibate or just don't have sex. Can't procreate without sex. Are you saying it's abnormal to abstain from intercourse, Bee? Because I think it's completely normal. Besides, adoption, regardless of who is doing it, is supposed to be about love. I guess gay couples must be incapable of love. =/

EDIT - Now that I think about it, I guess I would also say it would forbid salvation, at least for everyone but the virgin Mary, because as far as I know God isn't in the habit of going about mystically impregnating women these days.

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:Normal is any union which has the potential of creating a new life. Not a must, but a potential.

As I said, I agree with you about homosexual couples not being ideal for raising children, but this definition of normal has some risks involved. For instance, it would specifically forbid provenly sterile couples from adopting. It would forbid a single aunt from adopting her niece, requiring that the kid be placed in an institution or fostered out to strangers.

I see what you mean Kilarin and I don't know how to word it correctly but sterile couples are normal. They are still male and female who would have had the potential of creating life if it wasn't for a medical condition so they can adopt as many as they are allowed. The abnormal combination can't create life.

The aunt is also normal because there is no same sex partner and she is simply taking care of her niece. It's as normal as my dad and I living together. If he (gross) married another man it would be abnormal.

1: Would you recommend that my cousins children be taken away from her and placed into heterosexual foster homes?

Not now. It's too late.

2: Do you think the children would have been better off if she had not been allowed to adopt them in the first place.

3: Would you have forbidden my cousins partner from having children in the first place?

I'm risking our friendship here because I know what this means to you but yes to both questions if there was a chance for them to be adopted into a normal family. I'm really sorry Kilarin.

And for Thorne... The bible is probably the worst book to be considered as a guide on moral issues. The very very worst.

Bee

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're claiming that the New Testament is anti-semitic, tunnelcat? You've been spewing unfounded claims since you came in here, but I'm inclined to call you on this particular one right now. Show us.

Sorry Sergeant. Bad semantics on my part. I should have said that the New Testament of the Bible is USED to justify antisemitism, it doesn't actually say anything about it. The story of the rejection and crucification of Jesus Christ is usually the BASIS for discrimination against the Jews, whether they were to blame for it or not. As for my other arguments concerning the Bible, people seem to like to pick and choose what they want to follow to suit their tastes or concerns. I find that the very essence of hypocrisy. If you want to believe in the Bible, that's fine, believe in it with all your heart, but not just the parts that fit your own world view and don't force those views on others that don't want it. Your life is your own.

Lothar wrote:(aside) Sexuality is a complex thing which is neither "chosen" nor "inborn"; it's an appetite that develops and changes over time depending on natural inclination as well as how it's fed. Everyone who's had a long-term sexual relationship has some experience with this. The largest twin studies show it as well. And you can see it from the existence of ex-gays, ex-ex-gays, people who have developed or discarded various fetishes, people who can't seem to overcome sexual desires they dislike, etc. (even more aside) I personally believe God desires for people to feed their sexuality in a very specific way, developing a strong long-term bond with their opposite-sex spouse. But I don't expect people who don't follow God in general to be beholden to Him in this specific case, nor do I think our laws should impose such a thing.

Lothar, sexuality may not be totally a 'choice' as you present. That very 'twins' study you refer to has had another explanation for why one twin turns out gay and the other turns out straight. Researchers are starting to discover that the 'brain sex' development of the fetus seems to be more influenced by the bathing hormones in the amniotic fluid of the womb than it's own DNA. They've found that hormone concentrations can vary widely within the womb, even between twin fetuses. It's theorized that a female fetus exposed to higher levels of testosterone develop a more male thinking brain and males exposed to estrogen have the opposite effect. This effect can even alter the actual brain wiring that is unique between the sexes, females have more connectivity between the two halves.

The program to create a human is a very complex code that can be influenced by a lot of factors. We appear to not be totally slaved to our DNA code that we initially receive from egg and sperm. That code can be altered in the womb chemically as the fetus forms and grows and research is just starting to find that out. Bisexuality may even be explained in this fashion as well. But we sorely need more research on the subject, but in the U.S., religious forces or just plain bigotry are constantly fighting any funding for it. Don't people really want to know or are they afraid of what will be found?

Ex-gay therapy is highly controversial. It has even been called 'cruel and coercive'. The only 'supposedly' successful cases were probably either bisexual or self-loathers. Quite a few 'converts' have committed suicide.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/opinion/con ... s-clients/

tunnelcat wrote:Don't people really want to know or are they afraid of what will be found?

Xenophobia is both extremely prevalent and extremely destructive. Just look at the world around you and you'll see what I mean. Typically, what we don't understand we reject, and exactly how much can we honestly say we understand completely? About anything, period? Now narrow it down to how the human body - or even just the human brain - works, and suddenly we are so incredibly naive, ignorant and/or fearful that little to no progress is made. I admit, I don't exactly like the thought of homosexuality, but I'm not the one doing it, and I'm not being involved in it, so I really don't give a shiitake mushroom. Why are some people so adamant about what others should and shouldn't do? It's their life, their choice, let them live it their way... as long as it doesn't interfere with you and yours appreciably, leave it alone. It's more trouble than it's worth, and it's wrong, even from a biblical standpoint.

Bettina wrote:I'm risking our friendship here because I know what this means to you

Certainly not! We disagree, but if I couldn't be friends with someone I disagree with, my marriage would be in SERIOUS trouble.

tunnelcat wrote:sexuality may not be totally a 'choice' as you present.

Nature/Nurture/Choice is a FASCINATING discussion, and I'm not trying to squelch it at all. But I DO hope and assume that everyone realizes it is irrelevant to the issue of whether a certain behavior is immoral or not.

MD-1118 wrote:It's their life, their choice, let them live it their way... as long as it doesn't interfere with you and yours appreciably, leave it alone. It's more trouble than it's worth, and it's wrong, even from a biblical standpoint.

Slightly amend "as long as it doesn't interfere with you and yours" to "as long as they aren't directly harming others" and I agree.

The freedom that allows me to preach that homosexuality is wrong is the SAME freedom that allows the homosexuals to have a gay pride parade downtown. The free marketplace of ideas requires open trade in all directions.

Kilarin wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:It's their life, their choice, let them live it their way... as long as it doesn't interfere with you and yours appreciably, leave it alone. It's more trouble than it's worth, and it's wrong, even from a biblical standpoint.

Slightly amend "as long as it doesn't interfere with you and yours" to "as long as they aren't directly harming others" and I agree.

The freedom that allows me to preach that homosexuality is wrong is the SAME freedom that allows the homosexuals to have a gay pride parade downtown. The free marketplace of ideas requires open trade in all directions.

"as long as it doesn't interfere with you and yours appreciably" equates to "as long as they aren't directly harming others" in my book, although it does go a bit farther in saying one shouldn't pester others needlessly with words, especially if it does nothing to improve a situation. As you said, it cuts both ways.

I wasn't trying to say that Christians need to shut up with their "hate speech" (because for the most part, it isn't hate speech at all, just opinions and beliefs)... what I was trying to say was, people shouldn't try to force their opinions and beliefs on others. It's okay to share them, but just because a person technically can spout the same thing over and over at someone doesn't always mean they should. One should always strive to be respectful, if possible.